Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report for the Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study in Pima County Arizona Prepared for and in cooperation with the Pima County Regional Flood Control District While under contract and in cooperation with Stantec Consulting Inc. December 2008 By Ian P. Sharp, P.E., CFM JE Fuller Hydrology & Geomorphology Inc. Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report for the Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study in Pima County Arizona PREPARED FOR: Pima County Regional Flood Control District 97 East Congress, 3rd floor Tucson, AZ 85701 Pima County Contract Number 16-59-S-138098-0606, Change Order 1 WHILE UNDER CONTRACT WITH: Stantec Consulting Inc. 201 North Bonita Avenue, Suite 101 Tucson, AZ 85745 BY: JE Fuller Hydrology & Geomorphology Inc. 40 East Helen Street Tucson, Arizona 85705 520-623-3112 http://www.jefuller.com PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/AUTHOR Ian P. Sharp, P.E., CFM Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Contents SECTIONS 1 Introduction 2 Modeling Overview 3 SCS Curve Number Methodology 4 Manning’s Roughness Discussion 5 Calibration 6 Detailed 100-year Event Models 7 100-year Event Results and Verification 8 Delineation of 100-year Event Floodplain 9 10-year and 25-year Event Models 10 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations 11 References APPENDICES Appendix A - List of Tables and Figures Appendix B - Northern Flow Splits Analyses Appendix C - Digital Files Appendix D - Large-Scale FLO-2D Model Discussion Appendix E - FLO-2D Calibration to HEC-HMS Appendix F - Verification of Volume Conservation Appendix G - Comparison of FLO-2D and HEC-HMS Results Appendix H - Plates and Exhibits PLATES AND EXHIBITS Plate 1 - Northern Flow Splits Plate 2 - FLO-2D Predicted 10-year and 100-year Flood Limits with Significant Flow Paths and Concentration Points Exhibit 1 - Velocity and Depth Maps JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. i Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Contents ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 PURPOSE......................................................................................................................................................1 STUDY AREA ...............................................................................................................................................1 TWO-DIMENSIONAL FLOW ANALYSIS SCOPE ..............................................................................................4 Modeling Overview ............................................................................................................................................5 2.1 2.2 3 GENERAL.....................................................................................................................................................5 OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................................................5 SCS Curve Number Methodology ....................................................................................................................7 3.1 3.2 3.3 4 GENERAL.....................................................................................................................................................7 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SCS CURVE NUMBER METHODOLOGY.............................................................7 VERIFICATION OF METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................................................7 Manning’s Roughness Discussion .....................................................................................................................8 4.1 GENERAL.....................................................................................................................................................8 4.2 FLOODPLAIN ROUGHNESS ...........................................................................................................................8 4.2.1 Example Application..............................................................................................................................9 4.3 CHANNEL ROUGHNESS ................................................................................................................................9 5 Calibration........................................................................................................................................................11 5.1 5.2 5.3 6 GENERAL...................................................................................................................................................11 CALIBRATED VARIABLES ..........................................................................................................................11 CALIBRATION MODEL OBSERVATIONS......................................................................................................13 Detailed 100-year Event Models .....................................................................................................................14 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 7 GENERAL...................................................................................................................................................14 MODEL GEOMETRY ...................................................................................................................................14 PRECIPITATION DEPTH AND DISTRIBUTION ...............................................................................................15 ROUGHNESS VALUES ................................................................................................................................15 SCS CURVE NUMBER INPUTS ....................................................................................................................16 INFLOW AND OUTFLOW LOCATIONS .........................................................................................................16 100-year Event Results and Verification........................................................................................................17 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 8 GENERAL...................................................................................................................................................17 DETAILED MODEL RESULTS ......................................................................................................................17 DISCHARGE VERIFICATION........................................................................................................................18 1988 HEC-1 MODEL .................................................................................................................................22 Delineation of 100-year Event Floodplain......................................................................................................24 8.1 8.2 8.3 9 GENERAL...................................................................................................................................................24 3-HOUR VERSUS 24-HOUR DISCHARGE ......................................................................................................24 FLOODPLAIN DELINEATION .......................................................................................................................24 10-year and 25-year Event Models .................................................................................................................26 9.1 9.2 9.3 10 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations............................................................................................27 10.1 10.2 10.3 11 GENERAL...................................................................................................................................................26 MODEL INPUT............................................................................................................................................26 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................................................26 ACCURACY OF RESULTS ............................................................................................................................27 UNMODELED BREAKOUT FLOW ................................................................................................................28 SUMMARY MAP .........................................................................................................................................28 References .........................................................................................................................................................29 JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Abstract iii Abstract A two-dimensional analysis of rainfall runoff from within the distributary flow areas of the Lee Moore Wash Basin was conducted using the FLO-2D flood routing model (FLO-2D FRM). Direct runoff was computed with the FLO-2D FRM via the SCS Curve Number (CN) Procedure. The CN procedure was incorporated into the FLO-2D FRM by the writers of the FLO-2D program specifically for this project following Pima County Regional Flood Control District methodology for computing runoff. FLO-2D models were calibrated to HEC-HMS models by varying input and modeling parameters including grid size, roughness coefficients, and roughness adjustment equation options. The 100-year, 3-hour and 24-hour storms were modeled and indicate approximately 50% of the study area is impacted by 100-year flooding. The twodimensional modeling predicted a 100-year peak discharge of over 20,000 cfs within the Lee Moore Wash channel where it crosses the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge. Peak discharges were recorded elsewhere at approximately 1,900 other locations within distributary flow areas and along watercourses such as the Gunnery Range Wash, Sycamore Wash, Fagan Wash, Cuprite Wash, Flato Wash, and Petty Ranch Wash. In addition to modeling the 100-year event, the 10and 25-year, 3-hour storms were modeled to help delineate significant flow corridors. JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Introduction 1 1.1 1 Introduction Purpose The Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study (LMWBMS) is a flood control planning study of the Lee Moore Wash Basin. The Pima County Regional Flood Control District (PCRFCD) has identified the Lee Moore Wash Basin as a critical area with the potential for extensive future development. The LMWBMS originally included tasks to model the entire watershed with HEC-HMS to determine runoff volumes. This hydrologic modeling would then be followed by HEC-RAS hydraulic modeling to compute flow hydraulics. However, during the hydrologic and geomorphic analyses, it was determined that a relatively large portion of the study area is characterized by distributary flow. The distributary flow patterns caused standard watershed delineation and one-dimensional hydraulic modeling to be ineffective. The purpose of this current study is to provide two-dimensional flow analysis with the FLO-2D flood routing model (FLO-2D FRM) at a level of detail sufficient for a basin-wide planning study. This report discusses the two-dimensional flow analysis conducted as a part of the LMWBMS. 1.2 Study Area The Lee Moore Wash Basin drains an area of approximately 213 square-miles and is located entirely within Pima County. The basin covers parts of the incorporated limits of both the Town of Sahuarita and the City of Tucson. Portions of the basin are a part of the Santa Rita Experimental Range and Wildlife area (administered by the University of Arizona College of Agriculture) to the southwest and Coronado National Forest to the southeast (United States Forest Service). The Lee Moore Wash basin drains to the Santa Cruz River and is generally bounded by Old Vail Connection Road to the north, Interstate 10 to the northeast, Santa Rita Road to the south, State Route 83 to the east, and the Santa Cruz River to the west. The Lee Moore Wash basin includes multiple smaller basins which drain to washes including the Gunnery Range, Lee Moore, Fagan, Petty Ranch, Flato, and Franco Washes. Figure 1 shows the study area. Drainage in the basin is generally towards the west and northwest, draining to the Santa Cruz River. The flow patterns vary within the basin; tributary flow occurs in the upper watershed, distributary flow occurs within the lower piedmont, and incised tributary flow occurs near the Santa Cruz River. Vegetation within the basin is typical of Sonoran Desert vegetation and is currently in good condition in most of the undeveloped areas. The majority of the watershed is undeveloped and in mostly natural conditions with the exceptions of roads, fences, grazing, stock tanks, and utilities. However, much of the northern and western periphery and some areas within the middle are developed and are continuing to develop, primarily with residential structures. The limits of the FLO-2D modeling are the drainage areas south of the Flato Wash, from the upper watershed down-basin (northwest) to the Lee Moore Wash, see Figure 2 This area is approximately 136 square miles. JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Introduction Figure 1 - LMWBMS project location map JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. 2 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Introduction Figure 2 - FLO-2D model area JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. 3 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Introduction 1.3 4 Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Scope JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. (JEF) prepared this report while under contract with Stantec Consulting, Inc. (Stantec). This report documents the study and results associated with Change Order 1 of Pima County contract number 16-59-S-138098-0606. The fulfillment of the scope is summarized in the following paragraphs. Task 1 required JEF to calibrate a FLO-2D model with HEC-HMS modeling.  Section 5 discusses the calibration and detailed analysis is found in Appendix E. Further verification of results is discussed in Section 7 and Appendix G. Task 2 required JEF to develop a single FLO-2D model of the LMWBMS for the area south of the Flato Wash, extending to the upper limit of the watershed and down to the Lee Moore Wash. This model would not be highly detailed but would be used to determine areas where more detailed modeling would be effective.  Section 2 provides an overview and Appendix D discusses the model in detail. Task 3 included the development of models of greater detail and smaller study area than Task 2.  Section 6 discusses detailed models. Task 4 was a coordination task, requiring JEF to coordinate with the FLO-2D FRM developer, PCRFCD, and Stantec to incorporate Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Curve Number (CN) methodology into the FLO-2D FRM as well as to assure that proper assumptions were made in developing the specific FLO-2D models.  Task 4 was ongoing throughout the project. Task 5 required JEF to prepare flood inundation and velocity maps based upon the results of the FLO-2D modeling.  Flood inundation were prepared in coordination with Stantec. These have been provided separate from this report by Stantec.  Velocity, and depth maps are included with this report as Exhibit 1. Task 6 was the preparation of this summary report.  This report satisfies Task 6. JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Modeling Overview 2 2.1 5 Modeling Overview General The FLO-2D analysis was an iterative process which involved modeling the area multiple times and with multiple methods to determine the most appropriate results based upon calibration and engineering judgment. This section summarizes the process followed to generate the ultimate results. Individual steps are discussed in detail later in the report as necessary. 2.2 Overview The following graphic illustrates the 100-year event modeling and map preparation steps. Use of SCS CN verified 400 ft grid modeled, flow patterns determined 200 ft grid modeled and calibrated to HMS methodology Study area subdivided into 7 sub-models with hydrographs from upstream sub-models input downstream Preliminary flood and discharge maps developed and submitted to PCRFCD Models refined to model 3- and 24-hour (100-yr) storms with rainfall depth varied between models Results compared to HMS models Final flood and discharge maps prepared Figure 3 - 100-year event FLO-2D model and inundation map development steps The following list further outlines the steps followed to develop the final flood and discharge maps provided to the PCRFCD. 1. The SCS Curve number procedure was used within the FLO-2D FRM to compute direct runoff. The computations made by the FLO-2D FRM and its grid developer program were verified before fully committing to model development. 2. The 100-year, 24-hour storm was modeled with a large-scale (relatively low grid resolution) model that had a grid size of 400 feet based upon the USGS DEM and was developed to JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Modeling Overview 6 determine general flow patterns and computational capabilities. 3. A 100-year, 24-hour model with a 200-foot wide grid pattern was developed using the USGS DEM. Inflow from the Stantec HEC-HMS model and FLO-2D flow split models were added to direct runoff computed within the FLO-2D FRM using the SCS CN Procedure. The 100year, 24-hour rainfall depth of 4.37 was found at the centroid of the study area and comes from NOAA Atlas 14 using the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval. The rainfall distribution followed the SCS Type I curve. 4. Three of the Stantec delineated sub-basins were selected to use in a calibration analysis. The sub-basins were modeled with the FLO-2D FRM to determine the effects of varying certain input parameters. The 100-year, 24-hour storm was the only storm modeled. 5. The results of the calibration routine were incorporated into the 200-foot grid USGS DEM model. The preliminary results were discussed with Stantec and the PCRFCD. 6. The portion of the study area within topographic coverage provided by PAG (2005) was analyzed in further detail with 100-foot grid models. This area was eliminated from the 200foot grid model yielding a 200-foot USGS DEM model which terminates along a straight line running east and west just within the PAG coverage. This model was labeled Model 0. 7. Based upon the flow patterns from the 200-foot grid model, the PAG topographic coverage was subdivided into 6 models with 100-foot wide grids. These models receive inflow from Model 0 as well as from the Stantec HMS models and the FLO-2D flow split model “J4”. The rainfall depth of 4.37 inches was used in all models. The study area was modeled as two-dimensional flow except where channels and berms were found to be hydraulically important. Therefore, several areas were modeled with channels and berms within the FLO-2D models, generally within the incised regions of the model area and where berms have been built. 8. Preliminary flood maps and peak discharge maps were developed based upon the detailed 100-foot grid with the 100-year, 24-hour storm. These maps were provided to the PCRFCD for review and comment. The most significant comment was that many areas appeared to have underestimated peak discharges. 9. The cause of the underestimated peak discharges was found to be primarily due to the use of the 24-hour storm. Therefore, the 3-hour storm was also modeled Another cause of the underestimated discharges was determined to be the use of a single rainfall depth over the study area. Consequently, both the 3-hour and 24-hour models were modeled with unique rainfall depths for each of the 100-foot grid models and the 200-foot grid model. 10. Several areas were analyzed with HEC-HMS to compare results to the FLO-2D modeling. 11. A delineation was made of areas where 100-year 3-hour peak discharges are not appropriate. The 100-year, 24-hour peak discharge is reported and delineated in these areas. 12. Final flood maps were prepared based upon the greatest discharge from the 100-year, 3-hour and 24-hour storms and the above delineation. 13. 10- and 25-yr models prepared with the 10-year event floodplain delineated. JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report SCS Curve Number Methodology 3 3.1 7 SCS Curve Number Methodology General This section discusses the application of the SCS Curve Number (CN) methodology as it relates to the FLO-2D models along with the methods used to input the various SCS CN parameters into the models. 3.2 General Description of SCS Curve Number Methodology The FLO-2D FRM can compute infiltration (loss) and runoff (excess) based upon rainfall and infiltration data (curve number). Within FLO-2D, each grid element is assigned a single CN, an average for the area represented by the grid element. The CN can be computed outside of the FLO-2D software suite and input via a number of methods, or can be computed with the FLO2D Grid Developer System (GDS), the procedure used in this project. The GDS computes the CN following relationships presented within the Pima County Hydrology Procedure and requires the input of three ESRI format shapefiles;  A shapefile which identifies the hydrologic soil group (A, B, C, or D or a combination thereof) along with the hydrologic cover (desert brush, herbaceous, etc.).  A shapefile delineating the cover density.  A shapefile delineating the impervious areas along with the percent impervious. The total loss is computed based upon the rainfall depth. The initial abstraction can be computed via the generic procedure for each grid element or assigned globally. Rainfall data is entered via a depth versus time distribution table. All other FLO-2D procedures are standard. 3.3 Verification of Methodology As this is the first use of the SCS CN methodology within the FLO-2D FRM, the various computations were checked for errors by JEF. It was verified that the GDS computes a curve number as would be calculated by hand following Pima County methodology. The functional relationships of cover density versus curve number (formulas developed that calculate CN from vegetative cover density and type) derived by the FLO-2D developers were verified with matching results and the computation of the CN by the GDS matched several hand calculations. Over 100 combinations of soil type, cover density, and impervious percentage were computed externally and with FLO-2D without significant differences in the results. JEF reviewed the results of simplified FLO-2D models to determine if the FLO-2D FRM would compute infiltration depths matching those computed by HEC-1 or by hand. Following initial review of the model by JEF and discussion with and revision of the FLO-2D FRM by the FLO2D developers, it was found that FLO-2D is reliable in regards to the computation of infiltration depth for a specific curve number and rainfall depth. JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Manning’s Roughness Discussion 4 4.1 8 Manning’s Roughness Discussion General FLO-2D is unique in how the roughness coefficient is handled within the calculations. This section discusses how roughness values are used in FLO-2D to help explain the calibration procedure and the seemingly low floodplain roughness coefficients used in the final models. 4.2 Floodplain Roughness The floodplain roughness is handled through a stepped process and is defined by the:  Floodplain Roughness Coefficient: Entered on the FPLAIN.DAT file and unique for each grid element, this is the basic description of roughness for flow depths over 3.0 feet. This coefficient can be altered automatically by applying a Limiting Froude Number.  Limiting Froude Number: Globally assigned as FROUDL on CONT.DAT file. This automated adjustment to the floodplain roughness coefficient can be used to prevent flow from exceeding a specific Froude Number by individually adjusting the floodplain roughness for each element and each time step. FLO-2D will report on the adjustments in the FPLAIN.RGH and CHAN.RGH output files which can be reviewed and used in determining appropriate roughness coefficients.  Shallow Roughness Coefficient: Assigned globally as SHALLOWN on CONT.DAT file. The minimum value is 0.1 and model will default to this if lower values are entered.  Depth Varied Roughness: Global coefficient with default status of on, but can be turned off (AMANN=-99 on CONT.DAT file). Used in order “to improve the timing of the floodwave progression through the grid system” (FLO-2D Input Manual, 43). The FLO-2D FRM applies a Manning’s roughness coefficient to each grid element for each time step per the following: Table 1 - Grid element roughness rules Grid flow depth range (ft) Roughness defined by Applied roughness value 0.0 3 ft. Figure 4 - Representation of depth varied floodplain roughness One can see that an issue faced when using this methodology is that if the floodplain roughness is set high enough relative to the shallow roughness value, the model will compute an increase in the roughness value from 0.5 feet to a depth just above 0.5 feet. In the case of the floodplain roughness being 0.045 and SHALLOWN of 0.1, the roughness at 0.5 ft is 0.050 (SHALLOWN/2) but the roughness at 0.6 ft is 0.063 per the depth varied roughness equation. This may or may not be a problem depending upon the given hydraulics and the limited time flow depths are in this range. 4.3 Channel Roughness The channel roughness value is treated separately from the floodplain roughness with similar methods. A limiting Froude Number can be assigned for each channel element. Additionally, a depth variable roughness equation is used by FLO-2D. The equation varies the roughness from the assigned roughness value at bank full flow to some greater value based upon a user defined coefficient (0 < r2 < 1.2). The greater the value of the coefficient, the greater the variation in roughness. Figure 5 is a graphical representation of the roughness equation relationship with a base (bank full) roughness value of 0.035 and a bank full depth of 4 feet. JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Manning’s Roughness Discussion 10 Figure 5 - Representation of depth varied channel roughness One problem noted by this user with the depth varied channel roughness equation occurs when channel cross sections are cut which are much deeper than the flow depth. Consider the situation of a cross section cut that has banks 8 feet above the flow line but a maximum water surface of 3 feet. The model will assume that bank full depth is 8 feet and therefore the roughness value at 3 feet of flow depth may be exceedingly high. This situation occurs in many of the constructed channel areas and highly incised areas. For this reason, the depth variable equation coefficient is set on the low side of the range of values, between 0.2 and 0.4. JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Calibration 5 5.1 11 Calibration General This section discusses the calibration procedures with summary results and conclusions. Detailed discussion is included within Appendix E and has been previously presented to the PCRFCD. Note that calibration was performed for the 100-year, 24-hour model. 5.2 Calibrated Variables In order to calibrate the model, the input variables most appropriate to adjust include;  Floodplain roughness coefficient.  Shallow flow roughness coefficient.  The use of depth variable roughness. Other factors which may affect peak discharge are: surface detention depth (the minimum depth of flow before FLO-2D routes runoff), grid size, and limiting Froude Number. While it is desired to calibrate the FLO-2D model to HEC-HMS procedure models, it is not realistic to expect a FLO-2D model of this scale to generate results exactly as would be predicted with HEC-HMS. One of the primary issues with calibrating the model is the fact that the FLO-2D FRM is a physical process model which incorporates the coupled effects of flow hydraulics and hydrograph generation. Therefore, adjusting a parameter such as roughness in order to obtain a desired peak discharge can have an effect on the predicted flow hydraulics. Several calibration models have been developed from sub-basins within Petty Ranch, Cuprite, and Franco Washes. There are 5 basic Petty Ranch models which model the same area differently. Similarly, there are 4 basic Cuprite and 5 basic Franco models. Within the above models, individual variables were isolated yielding over 100 sub-models. The variables changed were:  The floodplain roughness coefficient, from 0.01 to 0.04.  The use of the depth variable roughness equation, on or off.  The shallow flow roughness coefficient, 0.10 to 0.25.  The grid element size, 85 and 200 feet for Petty Ranch and Franco, 85 feet for Cuprite. Peak discharges computed by HEC-HMS for these areas were compared to those computed by FLO-2D. For all FLO-2D models, the elevation data was obtained from the available PAG DEM/DTM data and the limiting Froude Number was set to 0.85. Figure 6 shows the model limits relative to the study area. Table 2 summarizes the basic geometry of the model limits. JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Calibration 12 Figure 6 - Calibration model limits Table 2 - Calibration model geometry Model Area (sq mi) Length (ft) Ave. Width (ft) Ratio L:W Ave. Slope (ft/ft) 6.9 Elev. Change (ft) 260 Petty Ranch 5.388 32,100 4,680 Franco 3.697 28,900 3,570 8.1 390 0.013 Cuprite 1.468 23,500 1,740 13.5 840 0.036 JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. 0.008 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Calibration 5.3 13 Calibration Model Observations Detailed results from the calibration procedure are included within Appendix E. Review of the calibration model results leads to mixed conclusions. Somewhat predictable results can be obtained when altering certain variables, while altering other variables will not yield predictable results. The reason for this is that the variables are linked, for example changing the floodplain roughness alters the flow depth. If the flow depth is reduced via a lower floodplain roughness coefficient, then the model may use the shallow roughness coefficient. Likewise, if the depth varied roughness equation is used, the roughness of a grid element may change many times during a model run. In general, the FLO-2D FRM predicted peak discharges less than what HEC-HMS predicted while predicting time of peak values slightly greater than what HEC-HMS predicted. The reasons for this are arguable. The HEC-HMS model requires simplified input calibrated to watersheds modeled elsewhere which may not fully account for the local watershed geometry and hydraulic response. Furthermore, the FLO-2D model may overestimate attenuation as the detail of the primary flow paths is lost in the development of the grid. This may be rectified if the channel option is used, but this adds greatly to the level of detail required when developing the models. Table 3 summarizes the recommendations based upon the calibration with HECHMS. Table 3 - Summary of FLO-2D to HEC-HMS calibration recommendations Variable Recommendation Depth varied roughness equation Turn on (leave on as default is on) Grid element size Use smallest size reasonable. Floodplain roughness coefficient Use 0.030 to 0.035. May use 0.040 for smaller grid sizes. Use a smaller value when larger grid sizes are used. Avoid values less than 0.030 unless justifiable and within primary flow corridors. Shallow roughness coefficient Use appropriate value in conjunction with the terrain and the floodplain coefficient used. 0.010 may be most applicable for Lee Moore Wash study area. The final recommendation based upon the calibration procedure is the threshold flood mapping depth discussed within Appendix E. It should be noted that the depth discussed is an average depth over a grid element and does not account for more localized flow depths. This explains why using a depth as great as 0.5 feet places only 10 percent of the study area within the mapped flood limits, an arguably low number considering the sheet flow documented within the area. A depth of 0.03 feet places about 90 percent of the study area within the flood limits. A more reasonable value is a depth of around 0.2 feet and was the guideline in delineating flood inundation for this project. JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Detailed 100-year Event Models 6 6.1 14 Detailed 100-year Event Models General This section documents the detailed 100-year event FLO-2D models prepared for this project. These models were used to prepare the flood inundation maps (submitted by Stantec separately). 6.2 Model Geometry The study area was sub-divided into 7 sub-models to reduce individual model size and runtime. The model limits are shown on Figure 7. Figure 7 - Detailed sub-model boundaries JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Detailed 100-year Event Models 15 Model 0 uses the elevation data from USGS DEM and has a 200-foot grid. The remainder of the study area was sub-divided into 6 models, all with 100-foot grid spacing using PAG elevation data. Note that it was necessary to subdivide the model as there are over 311,000 grid elements on two different elevation models. In addition, external hydrographs with large volumes were added to the model (V100-24=3,470 ac-ft), direct runoff was computed, over 650 grid elements were modeled with channel sections, and over 30 grid elements were modeled with levees. Finally, the shape of the basin causes over 21,600 cfs and 18,700 ac-ft of runoff to pass through the space of 200 feet of width at the ultimate outflow point. All of the above increase runtime and would have exceeded available computational resources if modeled in one model. 6.3 Precipitation Depth and Distribution The 100-year 3-hour and 24-hour storms were modeled with the rainfall distribution and depth entered on the RAIN.DAT FLO-2D file. Rainfall data was obtained from NOAA Atlas 14 using the upper bound of the 90 percent confidence interval (the upper bound data was used based on direction from the PCRFCD). The 3-hour storm followed the most intense portion of the SCS Type II curve using a distribution provided by the PCRFCD and verified by JEF. The 24-hour storm was modeled with the temporal distribution of rainfall obtained from SCS Type I coordinates. For both distributions, the rainfall begins at 12 hours as the Stantec HEC-HMS models have a start time of 12:00. The following table summarizes the 100-year 3-hour and 24hour rainfall depths used in the 7 models. Table 4 - 100-year precipitation depths Model Area Centroid 100-year depth (upper bound of 90% confidence interval) (sq mi) Longitude Latitude 3-hour 24-hour 0 33.21 31.880 110.802 3.74 4.83 1 10.88 31.930 110.900 3.23 4.19 2 11.15 31.928 110.831 3.35 4.40 3 13.95 31.939 110.788 3.45 4.50 4 26.16 31.975 110.763 3.42 4.45 5 26.69 31.993 110.856 3.24 4.21 6 14.29 31.995 110.918 2.87 3.76 Total 136.33 3.39 4.40 Weighted 6.4 Roughness Values The floodplain roughness coefficient was assigned by geographic location (based upon the calibration); 0.030 within piedmont areas and 0.040 on hillslope areas. The shallow roughness coefficient was set to 0.10 and the limiting Froude Number (floodplain) was set to 0.85. It is noted that the above floodplain roughness coefficients may be interpreted as low considering the terrain. However, recall the rules discussed within Table 1 and note that this roughness JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Detailed 100-year Event Models 16 coefficient applies to flow depths over 3 feet. Review of the flow depths reported by FLO-2D indicates that the vast majority of time steps occur with flow depth less than 0.5 feet, causing the model to use the shallow roughness coefficient. A good indication that any roughness coefficient is appropriate is analysis of the Froude Number. This can be accomplished with the FLO-2D FRM via limiting the Froude Number, thereby forcing FLO-2D to adjust the assigned floodplain roughness values up to limit the Froude Number to some maximum value. Therefore, a preliminary model was executed with an extremely low global floodplain roughness coefficient of 0.010, the limiting Froude Number set to 0.55, and depth variable roughness turned on. The resulting adjusted floodplain coefficient values (reported by FLO-2D within the FPLAIN.RGH file) were typically less than 0.035 on the piedmont and less than 0.050 on the hillslopes. In reality, flow on the hillslopes is likely critical with a Froude Number near 1. Tests were performed on the piedmont areas and the Froude Number is realistically between 0.3 and 0.8, depending upon location. This test supports the values used for floodplain roughness coefficients. 6.5 SCS Curve Number Inputs Stantec originally developed SCS CN shapefiles for use in the HEC-HMS model. These files were obtained by JEF. Where the FLO-2D model area extended outside of the original delineation by Stantec, the parameters were assigned by JEF following procedures used by Stantec. The methods employed by Stantec assigned the hydrologic cover based upon land use (development type and density) and other parameters. Cover density was set to 20 percent at elevations below 4,000 feet and 30 percent above 4,000 feet. 6.6 Inflow and Outflow Locations Models 1 through 4 receive inflow hydrographs from Model 0 and route this flow downstream along with runoff generated from rainfall on the modeled surface. Model 4 also receives runoff hydrographs from HEC-HMS modeling and the J4 flow split model. Along with modeling rainfall runoff, Model 5 receives inflow hydrographs from Models 2, 3, and 4. Model 6 adds local runoff to inflow hydrographs from Models 1 and 5. See Appendix F for further details including flow routing diagrams. The FLO-2D FRM will model the hydraulics of outflow elements but does not model the rainfall falling on these elements. There is consequently a one cell overlap between models to account for all of the rainfall volume within the study area. Outflow hydrographs are recorded by FLO2D in OUTNQ.DAT for floodplain elements and within HYCHAN.DAT for channel elements. These hydrographs were entered into the INFLOW.DAT file. An automated script was developed by JEF to build the INFLOW.DAT files. Outflow from the model area is recorded along Sahuarita Road, from Model 1. Breakout flow from Model 5 is recorded along Wilmot Road and Stantec recorded this as inflow into the HECHMS model. Finally, outflow from Model 6, at the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge over the Lee Moore Wash, is recorded as inflow into Stantec’s HMS model. Breakout flow was found to occur within Model 6 along a berm as labeled on Figure 7. Runoff at this location drains west and then north to reenter the Lee Moore Wash. This breakout was not modeled on the large-scale model and is not shown on Pima County GIS flow lines but it was however modeled within the detailed models. JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report 100-year Event Results and Verification 7 17 100-year Event Results and Verification 7.1 General This section discusses the 100-year event results and an analysis to verify the results. 7.2 Detailed Model Results The peak discharges and volumes entering and exiting the study area are summarized in the following table. See the flood inundation maps for more discharge information. Table 5 - 100-year event summary results Peak Discharge (cfs) 3-hr 24-hr Time of Peak* (hr) 3-hr 24-hr Volume (ac-ft) 3-hr 24-hr Inflow Rainfall 24,625 32,012 Total inflow hydrograph 2,489 3,472 Inflow from Stantec J9 9,840 5,770 3.3 11.4 1,750 2,471 Inflow from Stantec J11 3,150 1,840 2.8 11.3 519 746 Inflow from Stantec CU-J1 1,240 690 2.5 10.9 149 219 540 230 3.8 12.2 71 37 27,114 35,485 Infiltration and Interception 10,401 11,216 Storage 2,666 2,666 Total loss 13,066 13,882 14,126 21,655 Inflow from J4 flow split Rainfall and inflow sum Loss volume Outflow Total outflow Outflow 1 21,910 20,210 7.8 17.2 12,109 18,765 Outflow 2 2,940 2,120 5.6 14.0 1,045 1,369 Outflow 3 1,450 1,420 6.1 15.9 732 1,148 Outflow 4 430 410 5.6 15.6 240 373 * Reported time of peak values represent time from the beginning of rainfall. Approximately 1,900 flow recording cross sections were coded into the FLO-2D models. Shapefiles representing the extents of these have been prepared and included within this report for use by the PCRFCD. The provided cross sections record peak discharge, flow volume, time of peak, and other information for the 100-year 3- and 24-hour storms. The flood inundation maps also show these cross sections where the peak discharge recorded exceeds 100 cfs. See the table within Appendix C for more detail regarding this shapefile. JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report 100-year Event Results and Verification 7.3 18 Discharge Verification Several areas within the FLO-2D study area have been delineated using normal watershed delineation methods with runoff computed by HEC-HMS. These verification area sub-basins are the most tributary of the study area to assure that the runoff computed within FLO-2D is local and not significantly impacted by upstream flow splits. The intent was to provide comparative values for discharge, time of peak, and runoff volume to analyze the appropriateness of those values predicted by FLO-2D. The locations of the sub-basins are shown on Figure 8. The analysis generated results similar to the calibration procedure discussed within Section 5: FLO-2D consistently predicts lower peak discharge values than HEC-HMS. Runoff ratios between the methods from the 19 sub-basins are shown in Table 6. Graphical representation of the predicted peak discharge versus drainage area are shown on Figure 9 and Figure 10. Further detailed results can be found within Appendix G. Table 6 - Ratios of FLO-2D to HEC-HMS runoff values, 100-year event Test Area Area Discharge ratio* (sq mi) 3-hour 24-hour 2-5 0.056 0.75 0.81 2-2C 0.067 0.67 0.70 2-4A 0.074 0.60 0.83 2-4C 0.088 0.83 1.04 2-4B 0.113 0.67 0.73 5-3 0.116 0.63 0.76 2-3A 0.219 1.25 1.43 2-2A 0.489 0.67 0.75 4-2 0.511 0.85 0.86 4-3 0.590 0.99 0.93 5-2 0.643 0.95 0.84 7-2 0.668 0.80 0.85 4-1 0.800 1.76 0.97 1-1 0.813 1.07 0.81 6-1 0.936 0.61 0.71 2-2B 0.970 0.61 0.69 7-1 1.034 0.82 0.82 J2-2 1.459 0.58 0.66 5-1 1.625 1.09 1.09 J4-4 1.725 0.81 0.82 2-3A&B 1.747 0.67 0.77 1-2 2.869 1.09 1.12 3-1 7.760 0.78 0.93 Average 1.103 0.85 0.87 * Values equal FLO-2D result / HEC-HMS result. JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Time to peak ratio* 3-hour 24-hour 0.99 1.02 0.99 1.00 1.08 2.18 0.84 1.01 1.08 2.17 1.16 1.01 0.94 0.99 1.02 1.01 1.10 1.01 1.04 1.02 1.07 1.03 1.14 1.03 1.06 1.01 1.03 1.02 1.14 1.03 1.14 1.06 0.97 1.02 1.12 1.05 1.02 1.00 1.14 1.03 1.05 1.03 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.03 1.05 1.12 Volume ratio* 3-hour 24-hour 0.96 1.01 0.97 1.06 1.82 1.98 1.03 1.11 1.51 1.50 1.00 1.05 0.87 0.91 0.55 1.27 0.85 0.89 0.94 0.97 0.80 0.87 0.90 0.96 0.88 0.91 0.75 0.78 0.87 0.91 0.55 1.28 0.83 0.89 0.81 0.87 0.86 0.90 0.79 0.85 0.83 0.90 0.92 0.97 0.82 0.89 0.92 1.03 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report 100-year Event Results and Verification Figure 8 - Verification sub-basin location map JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. 19 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report 100-year Event Results and Verification HMS 3-hr FLO-2D 3-hr HMS 24-hr FLO-2D 24-hr Figure 9 - Comparison of 100-yr discharge vs. drainage area, FLO-2D and HEC-HMS, DA < 1sq mi JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. 20 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report 100-year Event Results and Verification 21 HMS 3-hr FLO-2D 3-hr FLO-2D 24-hr HMS 24-hr Figure 10 - Comparison of 100-yr discharge vs. drainage area, FLO-2D and HEC-HMS, DA > 1sq mi JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report 100-year Event Results and Verification 7.4 22 1988 HEC-1 Model The 1988 Pima County Department of Transportation and Flood Control District report “Hydrologic Investigation for the Lee Moore Wash Watershed, Pima County, Arizona” documented a HEC-1 model of the same study area. The HEC-1 model computed peak, 100year, 24-hour discharge values comparable to those from this study as shown in the following table. See Figure 9 for locations of the points in Table 7. Also see Plate 2 for corresponding key concentration points. Table 7 - Comparison of discharges between FLO-2D model and 1988 HEC-1 model Point ID Corresponding Plate 2 Key Concentration Point Watercourse 1988 HEC-1 Model Q100,24 (cfs) FLO-2D Peak Q 100-yr, 3-hr (cfs) FLO-2D Peak Q 100-yr, 24-hr (cfs) FLO-2D Cross Section -1- Breakou 1 Gunnery Range above Lee Moore Wash 5,736 4,630 4,480 6-121 -2- n/a Lee Moore Wash below Gunnery Range Wash 5,207 n/a n/a n/a -3- SC13 Sycamore Canyon above Lee Moore Wash 7,793 7,260 6,220 6-168 -4- LM1 Lee Moore Wash below Sycamore Canyon Wash 12,554 7,080 6,150 6-052 -5- FA5 Fagan above Lee Moore Wash 7,817 9,230 7,390 6-062 -6- LM5 Lee Moore Wash below Fagan Wash 19,814 12,830 10,850 6-018 -7- CU4 Cuprite above Lee Moore Wash 3,171 8,900 6,750 6-081 -8- PR4 Petty Ranch above Lee Moore Wash 1,103 1,780 1,070 6-141 -9- LM8 Lee Moore Wash below Gunnery and Fagan n/a 20,860 18,980 6-019 -10- LM9 Lee Moore Wash below Petty Ranch Wash 19,711 21,910 20,210 6-001 The discrepancies at Point ID 1, 4, and 6 are significantly due to the modeling along the Gunnery Range Wash: the FLO-2D model routes flow from Gunnery Range Wash west, crossing a location where the berm does not provide containment, and combines this breakout flow downstream of the Fagan Wash, back into the Lee Moore Wash while this breakout was not accounted for in the HEC-1 model (see the different flow path delineations on Figure 9). The discrepancy at Point ID 7 may be due to modeling of flow splits upstream within the FLO-2D model not done within the HEC-1 model. JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report 100-year Event Results and Verification 23 Figure 11 - Location map for comparison of discharges between FLO-2D model and 1988 HEC-1 model JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Delineation of 100-year Event Floodplain 8 8.1 24 Delineation of 100-year Event Floodplain General This section briefly documents the delineation of the 100-year event floodplain and the determination of the dominant discharge to report from the 100-year, 3- and 24-hour event models at different locations. 8.2 3-hour versus 24-hour Discharge The vast majority of the study area has peak discharges which are greater during the 3-hour storm simulation, even at the most downstream end. The dissimilarity between the peak discharges in the major threads is not significant in most cases (note the similarities between the discharges at the outflow points) and the 3- and 24-hour storm models place similar quantities of land within flood inundation areas. However, locations were found where the 3-hour discharge may be unrealistic. Therefore, it was decided to report and delineate to the greater of the 3-hour and 24-hour storms up to a certain threshold. To this end, it was decided that a drainage area of 10 square miles is a reasonable cutoff as it is unlikely that the 3-hour storm will be the dominant storm in areas greater than this. To facilitate this methodology, a calculation was performed to estimate the generic runoff volume from 10 square miles. Any location where a volume is recorded in excess of this is assumed to have more than 10 square miles of tributary drainage area. Based on an assumption of an average curve number of 85.2 and average 100-year, 3-hour rainfall depth of 3.39 inches, the threshold volume is 1,000 acre feet of runoff. Flow recording cross sections with this volume were highlighted and a final delineation was made by hand which included all of the highlighted cross sections and others based upon judgment. The delineation (Figure 12) basically includes the Flato and the Cuprite Washes as well as the incised portions of the Gunnery Range and Lee Moore Washes. All reported peak discharges within this area are based upon the 24-hour model. 8.3 Floodplain Delineation Detailed flood mapping was done only within the PAG coverage, within the limits of Models 1 through 6. The flood inundation maps were delineated by hand based upon the peak discharges predicted by FLO-2D using the automated mapping tools of FLO-2D Mapper as a guide. In general, delineation was done in areas where peak discharges of over 100 cfs were recorded. Other areas were delineated where judgment indicated either the FLO-2D runoff estimate may be low or no cross section was present but runoff may be over 100 cfs. Normal depth cross sections were modeled in many locations to fine tune the flood limits. The final delineation indicates approximately 48 square miles of the study area (within PAG coverage) is prone to 100-year flood inundation. JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Delineation of 100-year Event Floodplain Figure 12 - Map of area where the 100-year, 24-hour discharge is dominant JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. 25 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report 10-year and 25-year Event Models 9 26 10-year and 25-year Event Models 9.1 General During the course of the overall planning study, it was decided that a technical approach to delineating flow corridors was necessary. For this reason, the 10- and 25-year events (3-hour duration) were modeled with the 10-year event floodplain selected as a guide for flow corridor delineation (performed separately by Stantec). 9.2 Model Input The 100-year, 3-hour simulation models were revised to reflect the 10- and 25-year rainfall depths. Hydrographs for the Flato and Cuprite Washes were provided by Stantec. The Franco Wash J4 flow split was not modeled as its influence on the overall floodplain is minimal. No other revisions, calibrations, or verifications were performed. 9.3 Results Table 8 summarizes runoff. 10-year event flood limits have been delineated where 10-year discharge exceeds 100 cfs (provided in shapefile format and shown on Plate 2). The flow recording cross section shapefiles document the 10- and 25-year runoff values. Table 8 - 10-year and 25-year event summary results Peak Discharge (cfs) 10-yr 25-yr Time of Peak* (hr) 10-yr 25-yr Volume (ac-ft) 10-yr 25-yr Inflow Rainfall 15,839 19,119 Total inflow hydrograph 1,225 1,645 Inflow from Stantec J9 4,740 6,460 3.5 3.4 898 1,199 Inflow from Stantec J11 1,460 1,990 3.0 2.9 256 348 560 790 2.6 2.5 71 98 17,064 20,764 8,833 2,649 9,528 2,662 11,482 12,190 5,461 8,404 Inflow from Stantec CU-J1 Rainfall and inflow sum Loss volume Infiltration and Interception Storage Total loss Outflow Total outflow Outflow 1 4,450 8,990 10.3 9.9 4,767 7,299 Outflow 2 980 1,480 6.8 6.1 427 604 Outflow 3 270 550 11.5 9.1 196 376 Outflow 4 80 200 11.7 8.5 53 125 * Reported time of peak values represent time from the beginning of rainfall. JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations 27 10 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations This report has provided the documentation and results from a two-dimensional flow analysis of the Lee Moore Wash using the FLO-2D FRM. In summary:  Detailed FLO-2D models were prepared based on the 2005 PAG DTM and DEM data with flood limits delineated to 2-foot contour interval topography.  The 100-year, 3-hour and 24-hour general storms were modeled with the greatest discharge reported on the flood inundation maps (except in major flow corridors, where the 24-hour discharge is reported).  Rainfall data was from the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval.  100-year flood limits were delineated and are represented on the accompanying flood maps and are also included in the attached digital files.  10-year flood limits were delineated and included in the attached digital files.  FLO-2D models were calibrated to HEC-HMS models within reasonable constraints. Results from the modeling have been verified at several locations against HEC-HMS modeling.  The FLO-2D modeling indicates that approximately one-half of the study area is prone to flood inundation during the 100-year event. 10.1 Accuracy of Results The various comparisons of FLO-2D and HEC-HMS models indicate that the FLO-2D FRM, on average, predicts discharges that are approximately 15% lower than those predicted by HECHMS. The HEC-HMS model is an accepted methodology, but HEC-HMS results should not be considered the “correct” results but rather a baseline value to compare other methods to. Much of the reduction in peak discharge by FLO-2D may be accounted for by modeling storage and attenuation that is not fully accounted for with HEC-HMS. The computation of time of concentration for the HEC-HMS model is an issue which may alter the results as this computation requires user assumptions and judgment and is based on calibration to watersheds outside of the study area. Considering the broad scale of this project, the FLO-2D results are valid and useful for this planning study. That said, when using the FLO-2D predicted peak discharges, time of peak, or other data, it is important to understand that the results may be less conservative than those generated by other methods (although not necessarily less accurate or incorrect). Considering the modernity of this methodology and that the discharges generated by this study may guide future regulatory action, PCRFCD may want to consider the appropriateness of the results and the potential for a factor of safety of say 1.10 to 1.15 for the peak discharges. Furthermore, because FLO-2D consistently predicted a higher time of peak, a factor of safety may be applicable when combining FLO-2D generated hydrographs with HEC-HMS hydrographs. A factor of safety may be most appropriate within smaller drainage areas. Larger drainage areas, specifically where major watercourses join, may not need this considering that the FLO-2D study area assumed a stalled storm over the entire basin without aerial reduction. It should be stressed that the 3-hour storm is too long of a duration for many smaller drainage areas and individual studies must account for the runoff from a shorter duration, more intense JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations 28 storm. Smaller areas studied with the Pima County PC Hydro program (or similar method) will certainly have predicted peak discharges exceeding those presented within this study. Finally, a comment on the use of the flood inundation maps. These maps were prepared for planning and management purposes from a broad scale perspective. Use of the flood inundation maps in setting floor elevations or determining if an individual parcel is in or out of a flood plain is cautioned and may not be recommended. A lot or project-specific drainage analysis will likely be necessary depending upon the given situation. 10.2 Unmodeled Breakout Flow Outflow from the model area was recorded along Sahuarita Road at locations labeled Outflow 3 and Outflow 4 and this flow was not modeled downstream of Sahuarita Road. In reality, some portion of this flow will continue north to rejoin the Lee Moore Wash channel flows, potentially adding another 10% or more to the peak discharge under the railroad bridge. However, this flow that breaks out enters into the Santa Cruz River floodplain and much of this area has already been mapped as FEMA floodplain. Furthermore, as a part of this overall project, Stantec is analyzing the effects of a potential breakout from the Santa Cruz River which will generate a discharge within the Lee Moore Wash channel in excess of what can be generated from the Lee Moore Wash basin. These details were discussed between JEF, Stantec, and PCRFCD with the conclusion being that modeling this area would add little useful information to the overall project at this time. Further analysis of the breakout may be of use if either it is found that the Santa Cruz River breakout is not as severe as originally concluded or if structural measures are employed upstream to contain the Santa Cruz River breakout flow. 10.3 Summary Map Plate 2 is included to summarize the results of the FLO-2D modeling. This plate shows the 10and 100-year flood limits along with some significant flow paths. In addition, the 10-, 25-, and 100-year peak discharge data have been summarized at several key points of interest. JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report References 11 References National Weather Service, Western Region, < http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/>. FLO-2D, 2007, FLO-2D Data Input Manual, Version 2007.06. FLO-2D, 2007, FLO-2D GDS Manual, Version 2007.06. FLO-2D, 2007, FLO-2D Mapper Manual, Version 2007.06. FLO-2D, 2006, FLO-2D Users Manual, Version 2006.01. FLO-2D, 2007, Flood Routing Model, Version 2007.06. Pima Association of Governments, Digital Orthographic Aerial Photography, 2002 and 2005 flights. Pima County, 1988, Hydrologic Investigation for the Lee Moore Wash Watershed, Pima County, Arizona, Department of Transportation and Flood Control District, Planning Division. Riada Engineering, Inc., 2007, Implementation of the SCS Curve Number Procedure to Compute Rainfall Runoff/Infiltration in the FLO-2D Model. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS), Version 3.1.0. United States Department of Agriculture, 2006, Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Pima County, Arizona, Eastern Part, . United States Department of Agriculture, 2006, Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Santa Cruz and Parts of Cochise and Pima Counties, Arizona, . United States Department of Agriculture, 2006, Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Tucson-Avra Valley Area, Arizona, . JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. 29 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report References U.S. Geological Survey, 1981, Corona de Tucson, AZ, Digital Orthographic Quadrangle, GeoTIFF format, UTM Zone 12, NAD83 projection, 20-foot contour interval. U.S. Geological Survey, 1981, Empire Ranch, AZ, Digital Orthographic Quadrangle, GeoTIFF format, UTM Zone 12, NAD83 projection, 40-foot contour interval. U.S. Geological Survey, 1981, Green Valley, AZ, Digital Orthographic Quadrangle, GeoTIFF format, UTM Zone 12, NAD83 projection, 20-foot contour interval. U.S. Geological Survey, 1981, Helvetia, AZ, Digital Orthographic Quadrangle, GeoTIFF format, UTM Zone 12, NAD83 projection, 40-foot contour interval. U.S. Geological Survey, 1981, Mount Fagan, AZ, Digital Orthographic Quadrangle, GeoTIFF format, UTM Zone 12, NAD83 projection, 40-foot contour interval. U.S. Geological Survey, 1981, Sahuarita, AZ, Digital Orthographic Quadrangle, GeoTIFF format, UTM Zone 12, NAD83 projection, 20-foot contour interval. U.S. Geological Survey, 1981, Vail, AZ, Digital Orthographic Quadrangle, GeoTIFF format, UTM Zone 12, NAD83 projection, 40-foot contour interval. U.S. Geological Survey, 1983, Tucson SW, AZ, Digital Orthographic Quadrangle, GeoTIFF format, UTM Zone 12, NAD83 projection, 10-foot contour interval. U.S. Geological Survey, 1992, Tucson SE, AZ, Digital Orthographic Quadrangle, GeoTIFF format, UTM Zone 12, NAD83 projection, 10-foot contour interval. JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. 30 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix A A-1 Appendix A - List of Tables and Figures LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - LMWBMS project location map Figure 2 - FLO-2D model area Figure 3 - 100-year event FLO-2D model and inundation map development steps Figure 4 - Representation of depth varied floodplain roughness Figure 5 - Representation of depth varied channel roughness Figure 6 - Calibration model limits Figure 7 - Detailed sub-model boundaries Figure 8 - Verification sub-basin location map Figure 9 - Comparison of 100-yr discharge vs. drainage area, FLO-2D and HEC-HMS, DA < 1sq mi Figure 10 - Comparison of 100-yr discharge vs. drainage area, FLO-2D and HEC-HMS, DA > 1sq mi Figure 11 - Location map for comparison of discharges between FLO-2D model and 1988 HEC-1 model Figure 12 - Map of area where the 100-year, 24-hour discharge is dominant 2 3 5 9 10 12 14 19 20 21 23 25 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 - Grid element roughness rules .....................................................................................................................8 Table 2 - Calibration model geometry .....................................................................................................................12 Table 3 - Summary of FLO-2D to HEC-HMS calibration recommendations......................................................13 Table 4 - 100-year precipitation depths ...................................................................................................................15 Table 5 - 100-year event summary results...............................................................................................................17 Table 6 - Ratios of FLO-2D to HEC-HMS runoff values, 100-year event ............................................................18 Table 7 - Comparison of discharges between FLO-2D model and 1988 HEC-1 model.......................................22 Table 8 - 10-year and 25-year event summary results............................................................................................26 JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix B Appendix B - Northern Flow Splits Analyses JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. B-1 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix B B B-2 Northern Flow Splits Analyses Prior to the development of the extensive FLO-2D modeling discussed throughout the report, JEF prepared three flow split analyses for Stantec to assist with the HEC-HMS model development. The analyses were conducted while under contract with Stantec and were a part of Task B of Pima County contract number 16-59-S-138098-0606. The HEC-HMS models were developed by Stantec. Through the course of the watershed delineation, Stantec identified several areas where it was not readily clear as to which direction to route a hydrograph from a concentration point. JEF developed FLO-2D models in these areas with the purpose of defining which direction(s) to route hydrographs. The results of the FLO-2D modeling have already been shared with Stantec and incorporated within the HEC-HMS model. JEF also produced shapefiles representing the flooded area and shared these shapefiles with Stantec for use in the floodplain mapping. The FLO-2D methodology and results are included within this report for documentation and continuity purposes. B.1 Modeling Methodology The FLO-2D FRM, version 2006, was used to model flow splits.  Terrain data was obtained from the Pima Association of Governments (PAG) in the form of Digital Elevation Model (DEM) data in text file format. The DEMs typically have ground data on an 8-foot grid. The FLO-2D Grid Developer System (GDS) was used to interpolate the elevation points.  Hydrographs were obtained from Stantec and input into the models within the INFLOW.DAT file. In order to avoid over concentration of inflow, several of the hydrographs were evenly divided amongst multiple grid elements. A hydrograph divided amongst n grid elements had the discharge divided by n for each ordinate.  Shapefiles were developed representing the Manning’s roughness coefficient within the modeled area. The GDS was used to assign the roughness values based upon location of the grid in relation to the roughness shapefiles.  The grid size varied between the models and was largely dependent upon the modeled area and discharge. An attempt was made to keep the number of grid elements below 15,000 to minimize computational time.  Floodplain cross sections were encoded to record the peak discharge and hydrograph at various locations, but most importantly at the most downstream boundary of the model. Hydrographs from the HYCROSS.OUT file represent the flow split hydrographs. B.2 Flow Split Locations and Extent The location and extent of the 3 flow split models are shown on Figures B-1 and B-2 and on Plate 1. The models generally cover areas where flow travels west from an area of tributary to distributary flow patterns. The models are named for the concentration point, labeled by Stantec (in preliminary models, these may have changed since), which is upstream of the flow split. The J2 model is within the Franco Wash basin and documents the flow split between the Franco Wash to the north and a Franco Wash tributary to the south. The J4 model represents a split which occurs within the Franco Wash tributary, upstream of the J2 model. The north flow split drains to the Franco Wash tributary while the south split drains to a Flato Wash tributary within the J12 model area. The J12 model is the largest in regards to geographic area and represents JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix B B-3 flow splits between the Flato, Cuprite, and Petty Ranch Washes. The southern flow splits enter into the larger two-dimensional flow area discussed within the report. Note that the more detailed, 100-foot grid models include this J12 flow split area with direct runoff on the surface computed with FLO-2D. The decision to do this followed preliminary analyses which determined that modeling the J12 split separate of the remainder of the FLO-2D model area artificially contained runoff to the north, runoff which splits into the Cuprite Wash. Figure B - 1 - Location map for northern flow split analyses JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix B Figure B - 2 - Location map for northern flow split analyses with Stantec sub-basins JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. B-4 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix B B.3 B-5 Results The various flow split models are summarized in the following subsections in the order they were prepared. Further details can be found on Plate 1 which shows the flow depths, flow recording cross section locations, and inflow hydrograph locations. The FLO-2D input files, output files, and FLO-2D Mapper generated shapefiles are found within the attached digital files. B.3.1 J4 Table B.1 – Summary of J4 Model Grid element spacing (ft) 16 Number of elements 11,839 Inflow hydrograph peak discharge (cfs), 3-hr / 24-hr 1,601 1,280 Inflow hydrograph volume (ac-ft) , 3-hr / 24-hr 361 592 Outflow volume from grid (ac-ft) , 3-hr / 24-hr 356 586 5 6 Volume of floodplain storage (ac-ft) , 3-hr / 24-hr Number of floodplain cross sections coded 6 Number of flow splits recorded 2 Flow split labels J4-South, J4-North Table B.2 – Summary of J4 Flow Splits Flow Split Label Corresponding Cross Section J4-South CS 4 J4-North CS 5 Q 3-hr (cfs) Q 24-hr (cfs) V 3-hr (ac-ft) V 24-hr (ac-ft) Near the outfall of FL15 359 229 48 37 Upland FR11 1,248 1,055 308 550 Sub-basin Split Drains Into B.3.2 J2 Table B.3 – Summary of J2 Model Grid element spacing (ft) 65 Number of elements 24,215 Inflow hydrograph peak discharge (cfs), 3-hr / 24-hr 3,230 2,710 Inflow hydrograph volume (ac-ft) , 3-hr / 24-hr 1,031 1,704 Outflow volume from grid (ac-ft) , 3-hr / 24-hr 886 146 Volume of floodplain storage (ac-ft) , 3-hr / 24-hr 145 1,558 Number of floodplain cross sections coded 11 Number of flow splits recorded 3 Flow split labels JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. J2-South, J2-Mid, J2-North Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix B B-6 Table B.4 – Summary of J2 Flow Splits Flow Split Label Corresponding Cross Section J2-North CS 1 J2-Mid J2-South Sub-basin Split Drains Into Q 3-hr (cfs) Q 24-hr (cfs) V 3-hr (ac-ft) V 24-hr (ac-ft) Outfall of FR16 914 819 267 454 CS 2 Outfall of FR17 642 609 230 424 CS 4 Outfall of FR10 0 0 0 0 B.3.3 J12 Table B.5 – Summary of J12 Model Grid element spacing (ft) 150 Number of elements 15,907 Inflow hydrograph peak discharge (cfs) 1,260 Inflow hydrograph volume (ac-ft) 4644.2 Outflow volume from grid (ac-ft) 3955.3 Volume of floodplain storage (ac-ft) 688.9 Number of floodplain cross sections coded 28 Number of flow splits recorded 5 Flow split labels Cuprite, PR-S, PR-N, FL-S, FL-N Table B.6 – Summary of J12 Flow Splits Flow Split Label Corresponding Cross Section Sub-basin Split Drains Into Q 24-hr (cfs) V 24-hr (ac-ft) Cuprite CS 1 Outfall of Unlabeled Cuprite 2,383 1,519 PR-S CS 2 Upland PR 2 1,372 987 PR-N CS 3 Upland PR 1 42 30 FL-S CS 4 Upland FL 18 132 100 FL-M CS 5 Upland FL 17 899 826 FL-N CS 6 Mid FL 17 707 504 JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix C Appendix C - Digital Files JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. C-1 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix C C-2 Several shapefiles are included: 10-year flood limits, 100-year flood limits, flow recording cross sections, inflow locations, and outflow locations. While most are self explanatory, the flow recording cross sections shapefile fields are detailed in the following table. Field Example Description CS_LABEL 6-087 Cross section label, including model number and CS number from model Q_PEAK 1,230 Maximum 100-year discharge based upon 100-yr, 3- and 24-hour models. 24-hour discharge shown in major flow corridors per "FORCE_24HR" field. DEP_100 10.86 Maximum 100-year flow depth based upon 100-yr, 3- and 24-hour models. 24-hour depth shown in major flow corridors per "FORCE_24HR" field. VEL_100 7.79 Maximum 100-year flow velocity based upon 100-yr, 3- and 24-hour models. 24-hour shown in major flow corridors per "FORCE_24HR" field. REGULATORY YES Yes if "Q_PEAK" is 100 cfs or more. Q_100_03 1222 Recorded peak discharge during 100-yr, 3-hour storm RND_100_03 1230 "Q_100_03" rounded up. Q_100_24 988 Recorded peak discharge during 100-yr, 24-hour storm RND_100_24 990 "Q_100_24" rounded up. TP_100_03 15.79 Recorded time of peak during 100-yr, 3-hour storm (rain starts at t=12) TP_100_24 28.35 Recorded time of peak during 100-yr, 12-hour storm (rain starts at t=12) VOL_100_03 609 Recorded runoff volume during 100-yr, 3-hour storm VOL_100_24 964.14 Recorded runoff volume during 100-yr, 24-hour storm Q_RATIO 1.24 Ratio of Q100-3 to Q100-24 T_RATIO 0.56 Ratio of T100-3 to T100-25 (T=TP-12) VOL_RATIO 0.63 Ratio of Volume100-3 to Volume100-26 DEP_100_03 10.86 100-yr, 3-hour flow depth obtained from analysis external of FLO-2D. DEP_100_24 9.82 100-yr, 24-hour flow depth obtained from analysis external of FLO-2D. VEL_100_03 7.79 100-yr, 3-hour flow velocity obtained from analysis external of FLO-2D. VEL_100_24 7.04 100-yr, 24-hour flow velocity obtained from analysis external of FLO-2D. Q_010 310 Recorded peak discharge during 10-yr, 3-hour storm Q_025 488 Recorded peak discharge during 25-yr, 3-hour storm TP_010 22.14 Recorded time of peak during 10-yr, 3-hour storm (rain starts at t=12) TP_025 16.76 Recorded time of peak during 25-yr, 3-hour storm (rain starts at t=12) VOL_010 254.24 Recorded runoff volume during 10-yr, 3-hour storm VOL_025 377.59 Recorded runoff volume during 25-yr, 3-hour storm MAXSTORM 3 Hour Details which discharge, Q100-3 or Q100-24, is greater FORCE_24HR NO Describes whether the 100-yr, 24-hour peak discharge is forced to show SHOW YES Describes whether the cross section is shown on the flood maps FLO_DIR 4 Direction flow recorded, 1=N, 2=E, 3=S, 4=W, 5=NE, 6=SE, 7=SW, 8=NW JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix D Appendix D - Large-Scale FLO-2D Model Discussion JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. D-1 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix D D D-2 Large-Scale Model This section discusses the development of and results from the large-scale (lower grid resolution) FLO-2D model. The model is generally south of the Flato Wash. The results of this model were used to develop the ultimate, more detailed models. Because the more detailed models discussed within this report supersede the large-scale models, the large-scale model input and output is omitted from this report to avoid confusion. D.1 Elevation Data Elevation data used in the large-scale model was obtained from United States Geological Survey (USGS) Digital Elevation Model (DEM) data. DEM data on a 10 meter grid was obtained for the nine 1:24,000 scale quadrangle maps covering the model area. USGS DEM data was used instead of PAG DEM/DTM data for the following reasons:  The PAG data does not cover the entire study area.  A single square mile of DEM data from PAG contains approximately 500,000 elevation points, requiring extensive computational resources over the entire 126 square mile model area.  The resolution of the FLO-2D model is coarse; 8-foot PAG DEM data would not be necessary on grids exceed exceeding 3 acres in size. FLO-2D GDS can import the DEM data directly, but the horizontal projection of the DEM data does not match the state plane projection used by Pima County. Furthermore, the DEM data contains metric elevation points. For these reasons, the DEM files were projected with ArcView software and the elevation points were scaled appropriately before importing into the GDS. The resulting elevation points are on the state plane coordinate system with elevations in feet. D.2 Grid Development The FLO-2D GDS was used to develop the grid. Along the north and east side of the model area, the grid was cut to align with the watershed delineated by Stantec for the Cuprite and Flato basins. The grid was limited along the south and the west by an apparent watershed divide. The most downstream limit of the FLO-2D model grid is the east side of Old Nogales Highway, where the Lee Moore Wash crosses under the railroad bridge. This location was assigned as outflow from the model. Additional outflow was assigned along Sahuarita Road, west of the Gunnery Range Wash, where a flow split upstream of this location causes a sizeable volume of water to exit the basin. Along the west side of the study area, north of Sahuarita Road, there currently exist berms that contains runoff to the basin. These berms are visible on the PAG topography but not on the USGS DEM. An analysis performed entirely on USGS data would likely not account for these berms and flow would not be contained to the basin. Therefore, the grid has been defined in this area based on PAG topographic data. Grid element elevations in this area have been adjusted manually to provide positive drainage in the downstream direction. It should be noted that the western edge of the model does not accurately model the hydraulics. The grid element size used in initial modeling is 400 feet, requiring approximately 22,000 grid elements for the model area and approximately one hour of run time. The final model is a 200foot grid model with almost 90,000 grid elements and a substantially longer run time. The 400JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix D D-3 foot grid model is used in calibration routines and to determine general trends before fully developing the 200-foot grid model. The GDS was used to import the DEM data and interpolate elevation points. Some grid elements required manual adjustment of elevation, specifically in the highest elevations with significant relief within a single grid element and/or where incised flow paths run diagonal to the orthogonal grid system. Grid element elevations were adjusted to provide positive relief in the downstream direction and to avoid ponding of runoff during the simulation. The FLO-2D model was developed with floodplain data only, no channels were specifically modeled. Attempts were made to model some of the larger watercourses within the incised, downstream areas. However, the course resolution of the model did not couple well with the detail associated with modeling the channels. Furthermore, detailed modeling within these incised areas (and the additional effort required to do so) is better left to the more detailed models based upon the PAG elevation data. D.3 Inflow From J-12 Model Three hydrographs were added to this model as inflow from the J-12 flow split model. The hydrographs from J12 cross sections 1, 2, and 3 were input into the plan position within this model relative to their placement within the J12 model. D.4 Precipitation The 100-year, 24-hour storm was modeled following the SCS Type I distribution with a single rainfall depth of 4.37 inches. JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E Appendix E - FLO-2D Calibration to HEC-HMS JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. E-1 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E E.1 E-2 HEC-HMS Calibration Models The HEC-HMS parameters are summarized in Table E - 1. Note that some of the parameters differ from the HEC-HMS model submitted for this project for comparative purposes. The CN has been rounded and impervious area has been set to 0 in the HEC-HMS model to isolate this variable. Table E - 1 – Summary of HEC-HMS Input Parameters Sub-basin CN PR1 Area (sq mi) 2.809 84 Rainfall Depth (in) 4.15 Q-100, 24hour (cfs) 626 q (cfs/sq-mi) 223 Time of 1 Peak (hr) 24.5 PR2 1.479 84 4.15 326 220 24.6 PR3 1.100 87 4.15 334 304 24.7 Combined PR 5.388 84.6 4.15 1,134 210 24.9 CU1 0.654 87 4.37 395 604 22.5 CU2 0.814 83 4.37 377 463 22.7 Combined CU 1.468 84.8 4.37 594 405 23.0 FR6 2.124 88 4.30 762 359 23.5 FR7 1.163 88 4.30 438 377 23.4 FR8 0.410 88 4.30 174 424 23.1 Combined FR 3.697 88 4.30 1,258 340 24.1 Note 1 – Rainfall begins at hour 12.0 E.2 Calibration Model Results The following are observations regarding the use of the depth varied roughness equation.  For most models with the DVR turned on, the time of peak increases as the floodplain roughness increases. When the DVR is turned off, this relationship is not consistent and sometimes a decreasing time of peak is associated with an increasing floodplain roughness.  Turning the DVR off almost always causes the model to predict a greater discharge and a shorter time of peak.  The curve of floodplain roughness versus predicted peak discharge is more uniform when the DVR is turned on. Based on the observations, it is recommended to use the depth varied roughness equation as it generates more consistent results. The following are observations regarding the effects of grid size.  For both the Petty Ranch and Franco models, the predicted peak discharge increases with increased grid size when the lowest floodplain roughness coefficients (<0.030) are used.  For both of the models, the use of a larger grid size will cause the model to predict a reduced peak discharge for floodplain roughness values of 0.030 to 0.040. JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E E-3  For the Petty Ranch model, a larger grid size caused a greater time of peak prediction with the lower floodplain roughness values. Higher floodplain roughness values caused the model to predict a shorter time of peak for a larger grid size.  For the Franco model, increasing grid size increased the time of peak for all models. Increasing the grid element size may change the flow path length and/or path. A model with smaller grid elements can more accurately model attenuation on floodplain areas along with allowing flow to pass quicker in primary flow paths. A larger grid element size may have a similar effect as increasing the roughness coefficient. Based on these observations, it is recommended to consider a lower floodplain roughness value with larger grid size. For models with a larger grid size (200 feet or more), a floodplain roughness of 0.030 may be more appropriate than 0.040. These observations further justify using the smallest grid size within reason as larger grids generated reduced peak discharges. The most consistent and predictable calibration was found in altering the floodplain roughness value.  In general, the lower the floodplain roughness value, the greater the predicted peak discharge. When the value of floodplain roughness is set to 0.010, the model predicts a peak discharge of approximately 3 times the value predicted by HEC-HMS.  Floodplain roughness values of 0.030 and 0.035 tended to generate the most consistent results. A value of 0.030 generated a peak discharge most in line with the HEC-HMS value.  Floodplain roughness values of 0.040 generated less consistent results and many times generated a peak discharge substantially less than the HEC-HMS peak discharge. Based on these results and the grid size discussion, a floodplain roughness value of 0.030 to 0.035 may be most appropriate. While this may seem low for a floodplain roughness value, it must be pointed out that the shallow roughness value is used for flow depths below 0.5 feet and then the depth varied roughness causes a smooth transition to the floodplain roughness value which is applicable to depths of greater than 3 feet. The vast majority of the floodplain will have flow depths much less than 3 feet and therefore generally remain within the shallow flow region. The effects of the shallow roughness coefficient are not entirely consistent.  In general, the lower the shallow roughness coefficient, the greater the predicted peak discharge. This was not always the case when the floodplain roughness was set to less than 0.030 but was generally the case for higher floodplain roughness values.  The most consistent results tend to appear when the floodplain roughness is set to 0.030 or 0.035 and the shallow roughness is less than 0.20.  The use of a shallow roughness coefficient of 0.25 generated inconsistent results. The use of a shallow roughness coefficient of 0.10 and floodplain roughness coefficients of 0.030 or 0.035 generates the closest results to the HEC-HMS model. JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E E-4 The following figures and tables summarize the FLO-2D models. Note that the time of peak values reference models with rainfall beginning at hour 12. Table E - 2– Input Summary for Model PR-1 Grid size (ft) Number of grid elements Number of outflow grid elements Modeled area (sq mi) w/o outflow 85 20,800 10 5.388 Shallow n Limiting Froude # Model Label 3,000 0.10 0.85 PR-1 DVR Equation 'off' DVR Equation 'on' 2,500 cfs Discharge (cfs) HMS 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 roughness Figure E - 1 – Comparison of floodplain roughness to predicted peak discharge for Model PR-1 DVR Equation 'off' 28.0 time of to peak (hr) Time DVR Equation 'on' 27.0 HMS 26.0 25.0 24.0 23.0 22.0 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 roughness Figure E - 2 – Comparison of floodplain roughness to predicted time of peak for model PR-1 JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E E-5 Table E - 3– Input Summary for Model PR-2 Grid size (ft) Number of grid elements Number of outflow grid elements Modeled area (sq mi) w/o outflow 200 3,762 7 Shallow n Limiting Froude # Model Label 0.10 0.85 PR-2 5.388 cfs Discharge (cfs) 4,000 3,500 DVR Equation 'on' 3,000 HMS 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 roughness to peak Timetime of peak (hr) Figure E - 3 – Comparison of floodplain roughness to predicted peak discharge for Model PR-2 28.0 DVR Equation 'on' 27.0 HMS 26.0 25.0 24.0 23.0 22.0 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 roughness Figure E - 4 – Comparison of floodplain roughness to predicted time of peak for model PR-2 JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E E-6 Table E - 4– Input Summary for Model PR-3 Grid size (ft) Number of grid elements Number of outflow grid elements Modeled area (sq mi) w/o outflow 200 3,762 7 Shallow n Limiting Froude # Model Label 0.15 0.85 PR-3 5.388 cfs Discharge (cfs) 4,000 3,500 DVR Equation 'on' 3,000 HMS 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 roughness to peak Timetime of peak (hr) Figure E - 5 – Comparison of floodplain roughness to predicted peak discharge for Model PR-3 28.0 DVR Equation 'on' 27.0 HMS 26.0 25.0 24.0 23.0 22.0 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 roughness Figure E - 6 – Comparison of floodplain roughness to predicted time of peak for model PR-3 JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E E-7 Table E - 5– Input Summary for Model PR-4 Grid size (ft) Number of grid elements Number of outflow grid elements Modeled area (sq mi) w/o outflow 200 3,762 7 Shallow n Limiting Froude # Model Label 0.20 0.85 PR-4 5.388 cfs Discharge (cfs) 4,000 3,500 DVR Equation 'on' 3,000 HMS 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 roughness to peak Timetime of peak (hr) Figure E - 7 – Comparison of floodplain roughness to predicted peak discharge for Model PR-4 28.0 DVR Equation 'on' 27.0 HMS 26.0 25.0 24.0 23.0 22.0 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 roughness Figure E - 8 – Comparison of floodplain roughness to predicted time of peak for model PR-4 JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E E-8 Table E - 6– Input Summary for Model PR-5 Grid size (ft) Number of grid elements Number of outflow grid elements Modeled area (sq mi) w/o outflow 200 3,762 7 Shallow n Limiting Froude # Model Label 0.25 0.85 PR-5 5.388 cfs Discharge (cfs) 4,000 3,500 DVR Equation 'on' 3,000 HMS 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 roughness to peak Timetime of peak (hr) Figure E - 9 – Comparison of floodplain roughness to predicted peak discharge for Model PR-5 28.0 DVR Equation 'on' 27.0 HMS 26.0 25.0 24.0 23.0 22.0 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 roughness Figure E - 10 – Comparison of floodplain roughness to predicted time of peak for model PR-5 JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E E-9 Table E - 7– Input Summary for Model CU-1 Grid size (ft) Number of grid elements Number of outflow grid elements Modeled area (sq mi) w/o outflow 85 5,664 5 Shallow n Limiting Froude # Model Label 0.10 0.85 CU-1 1.467 2,000 DVR Equation 'off' 1,800 DVR Equation 'on' HMS 1,400 cfs Discharge (cfs) 1,600 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 roughness Figure E - 11 – Comparison of floodplain roughness to predicted peak discharge for Model CU-1 28.0 to peak Time time of peak (hr) 27.0 DVR Equation 'off' DVR Equation 'on' HMS 26.0 25.0 24.0 23.0 22.0 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 roughness Figure E - 12 – Comparison of floodplain roughness to predicted time of peak for model CU-1 JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E E-10 Table E - 8– Input Summary for Model CU-2 Grid size (ft) Number of grid elements Number of outflow grid elements Modeled area (sq mi) w/o outflow 85 5,664 5 Shallow n Limiting Froude # Model Label 0.15 0.85 CU-2 1.467 1,800 DVR Equation 'on' 1,600 HMS 1,400 cfs Discharge (cfs) 2,000 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 roughness Figure E - 13 – Comparison of floodplain roughness to predicted peak discharge for Model CU-2 28.0 time peak Time of to peak (hr) 27.0 DVR Equation 'on' HMS 26.0 25.0 24.0 23.0 22.0 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 roughness Figure E - 14 – Comparison of floodplain roughness to predicted time of peak for model CU-2 JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E E-11 Table E - 9– Input Summary for Model CU-3 Grid size (ft) Number of grid elements Number of outflow grid elements Modeled area (sq mi) w/o outflow 85 5,664 5 Shallow n Limiting Froude # Model Label 0.20 0.85 CU-3 1.467 1,800 DVR Equation 'on' 1,600 HMS 1,400 cfs Discharge (cfs) 2,000 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 roughness Figure E - 15 – Comparison of floodplain roughness to predicted peak discharge for Model CU-3 28.0 time peak Time of to peak (hr) 27.0 DVR Equation 'on' HMS 26.0 25.0 24.0 23.0 22.0 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 roughness Figure E - 16 – Comparison of floodplain roughness to predicted time of peak for model CU-3 JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E E-12 Table E - 10– Input Summary for Model CU-4 Grid size (ft) Number of grid elements Number of outflow grid elements Modeled area (sq mi) w/o outflow 85 5,664 5 Shallow n Limiting Froude # Model Label 0.25 0.85 CU-4 1.467 1,800 DVR Equation 'on' 1,600 HMS 1,400 cfs Discharge (cfs) 2,000 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 roughness Figure E - 17 – Comparison of floodplain roughness to predicted peak discharge for Model CU-4 28.0 time peak Time of to peak (hr) 27.0 DVR Equation 'on' HMS 26.0 25.0 24.0 23.0 22.0 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 roughness Figure E - 18 – Comparison of floodplain roughness to predicted time of peak for model CU-4 JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E E-13 Table E - 11– Input Summary for Model FR-1 Grid size (ft) Number of grid elements Number of outflow grid elements Modeled area (sq mi) w/o outflow 85 14,278 5 Shallow n Limiting Froude # Model Label 3.699 1,500 DVR Equation 'off' 1,400 DVR Equation 'on' HMS 1,300 cfs Discharge (cfs) 0.10 0.85 FR-1 1,200 1,100 1,000 900 800 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 roughness Figure E - 19 – Comparison of floodplain roughness to predicted peak discharge for Model FR-1 29 DVR Equation 'off' DVR Equation 'on' 28 to peak Timetime of peak (hr) HMS 27 26 25 24 23 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 roughness Figure E - 20 – Comparison of floodplain roughness to predicted time of peak for model FR-1 JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E E-14 Table E - 12– Input Summary for Model FR-2 cfs Discharge (cfs) Grid size (ft) Number of grid elements Number of outflow grid elements Modeled area (sq mi) w/o outflow 2,500 2,300 2,100 1,900 1,700 1,500 1,300 1,100 900 700 500 0.010 200 2,580 3 Shallow n Limiting Froude # Model Label 0.10 0.85 FR-2 3.697 DVR Equation 'off' DVR Equation 'on' HMS 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 roughness Figure E - 21 – Comparison of floodplain roughness to predicted peak discharge for Model FR-2 29.0 DVR Equation 'off' DVR Equation 'on' 28.0 to peak Timetime of peak (hr) HMS 27.0 26.0 25.0 24.0 23.0 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 roughness Figure E - 22 – Comparison of floodplain roughness to predicted time of peak for model FR-2 JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E E-15 Table E - 13– Input Summary for Model FR-3 cfs Discharge (cfs) Grid size (ft) Number of grid elements Number of outflow grid elements Modeled area (sq mi) w/o outflow 2,500 2,300 2,100 1,900 1,700 1,500 1,300 1,100 900 700 500 0.010 200 2,580 3 Shallow n Limiting Froude # Model Label 0.15 0.85 FR-3 3.697 DVR Equation 'off' DVR Equation 'on' HMS 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 roughness Figure E - 23 – Comparison of floodplain roughness to predicted peak discharge for Model FR-3 29.0 DVR Equation 'off' DVR Equation 'on' 28.0 to peak Timetime of peak (hr) HMS 27.0 26.0 25.0 24.0 23.0 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 roughness Figure E - 24 – Comparison of floodplain roughness to predicted time of peak for model FR-3 JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E E-16 Table E - 14– Input Summary for Model FR-4 cfs Discharge (cfs) Grid size (ft) Number of grid elements Number of outflow grid elements Modeled area (sq mi) w/o outflow 2,500 2,300 2,100 1,900 1,700 1,500 1,300 1,100 900 700 500 0.010 200 2,580 3 Shallow n Limiting Froude # Model Label 0.20 0.85 FR-4 3.697 DVR Equation 'on' HMS 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 roughness Figure E - 25 – Comparison of floodplain roughness to predicted peak discharge for Model FR-4 29.0 time peak Time of to peak (hr) 28.0 DVR Equation 'on' HMS 27.0 26.0 25.0 24.0 23.0 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 roughness Figure E - 26 – Comparison of floodplain roughness to predicted time of peak for model FR-4 JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E E-17 Table E - 15– Input Summary for Model FR-5 cfs Discharge (cfs) Grid size (ft) Number of grid elements Number of outflow grid elements Modeled area (sq mi) w/o outflow 2,500 2,300 2,100 1,900 1,700 1,500 1,300 1,100 900 700 500 0.010 200 2,580 3 Shallow n Limiting Froude # Model Label 0.25 0.85 FR-5 3.697 DVR Equation 'on' HMS 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 roughness Figure E - 27 – Comparison of floodplain roughness to predicted peak discharge for Model FR-5 DVR Equation 'on' 29.0 HMS time peak Time of to peak (hr) 28.0 27.0 26.0 25.0 24.0 23.0 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 roughness Figure E - 28 – Comparison of floodplain roughness to predicted time of peak for model FR-5 The results from the individual models have been combined to show the effects of changing the shallow flow roughness value and the grid size. The following figures compare the predicted peak discharge and time of peak to the applied shallow roughness coefficients for floodplain roughness values of 0.020 and greater. These comparisons only include those models with the depth varied roughness turned on. JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E E-18 Floodplain n = 0.020 Floodplain n = 0.025 Floodplain n = 0.030 Floodplain n = 0.035 Floodplain n = 0.040 HEC-HMS 3400 Discharge Discharge (cfs) 2900 2400 1900 1400 900 400 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Shallow Roughness Figure E - 29 – Comparison of shallow roughness to predicted peak discharge for Petty Ranch Models Floodplain n = 0.020 Floodplain n = 0.025 Floodplain n = 0.030 Floodplain n = 0.035 Floodplain n = 0.040 HEC-HMS 28 TimeTime of peak (hr) of Peak 27 26 25 24 23 22 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Shallow Roughness Figure E - 30 – Comparison of shallow roughness to predicted time of peak for Petty Ranch Models JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E E-19 Floodplain n = 0.020 Floodplain n = 0.025 Floodplain n = 0.030 Floodplain n = 0.035 Floodplain n = 0.040 HEC-HMS 1800 1600 Discharge (cfs) Discharge 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Shallow Roughness Figure E - 31 – Comparison of shallow roughness to predicted peak discharge for Franco Models Floodplain n = 0.020 Floodplain n = 0.025 Floodplain n = 0.030 Floodplain n = 0.035 Floodplain n = 0.040 HEC-HMS 29 28 TimeTime of peak (hr) of Peak 27 26 25 24 23 22 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Shallow Roughness Figure E - 32 – Comparison of shallow roughness to predicted time of peak for Franco Models JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E E-20 The following figures compare grid size to predicted peak discharge and time of peak. Floodplain n = 0.020 Floodplain n = 0.025 Floodplain n = 0.030 Floodplain n = 0.035 Floodplain n = 0.040 HEC-HMS 1000 Discharge Discharge (cfs) 900 800 700 600 500 400 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Shallow Roughness Figure E - 33 – Comparison of shallow roughness to predicted peak discharge for Cuprite Models Floodplain n = 0.020 Floodplain n = 0.025 Floodplain n = 0.030 Floodplain n = 0.035 Floodplain n = 0.040 HEC-HMS 25 Time of peak (hr) Time of Peak 24.5 24 23.5 23 22.5 22 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Shallow Roughness Figure E - 34 – Comparison of shallow roughness to predicted time of peak for Cuprite Models JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E E-21 Floodplain n = 0.020 Floodplain n = 0.025 Floodplain n = 0.030 Floodplain n = 0.035 Floodplain n = 0.040 HEC-HMS 1800 Discharge Discharge (cfs) 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Grid Size Figure E - 35 – Comparison of grid size to predicted peak discharge for Petty Ranch Models Floodplain n = 0.020 Floodplain n = 0.025 Floodplain n = 0.030 Floodplain n = 0.035 Floodplain n = 0.040 HEC-HMS 27 26.5 Time of peak Time of (hr) Peak 26 25.5 25 24.5 24 23.5 23 80 100 120 140 160 180 Grid Size Figure E - 36 – Comparison of grid size to predicted time of peak for Petty Ranch Models JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. 200 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E E-22 Floodplain n = 0.020 Floodplain n = 0.025 Floodplain n = 0.030 Floodplain n = 0.035 Floodplain n = 0.040 HEC-HMS 1800 Discharge (cfs) Discharge 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Grid Size Figure E - 37 – Comparison of grid size to predicted peak discharge for Franco Models Floodplain n = 0.020 Floodplain n = 0.025 Floodplain n = 0.030 Floodplain n = 0.035 Floodplain n = 0.040 HEC-HMS 26 25.5 Time Timeofofpeak Peak(hr) 25 24.5 24 23.5 23 22.5 22 80 100 120 140 160 180 Grid Size Figure E - 38 – Comparison of grid size to predicted time of peak for Franco Models JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. 200 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E E-23 Figures E - 39 through E - 46 show scatter plots comparing floodplain roughness or shallow roughness to the ratio of the FLO-2D/HEC-HMS output. The time of peak ratio accounts for the time from the beginning of the rainfall, hour 12, and omits the first 12 hours. Figure E - 39 compares the discharge ratio to the floodplain roughness for all models (regardless of grid size or shallow roughness) with depth varied roughness turned off. Figure E - 40 compares the time of peak ratio for all models with depth varied roughness turned off. Figure E - 41 and Figure E - 42 provide similar comparisons for models with the depth varied roughness turned on. Figure E - 43 through Figure E - 46 provide comparisons of the shallow roughness to the discharge or time of peak ratios for all models regardless of grid size or floodplain roughness. Note that the data is less complete in the figures showing the depth varied roughness turned off figures because it was determined early on in the calibration process that the depth varied roughness equation should be used for more consistent results. JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E E-24 3.50 3.00 discharge ratio (FLO-2D/HMS) 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 floodplain roughness Figure E - 39 – Comparison of floodplain roughness to FLO-2D/HMS discharge ratio, DVR off JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. 0.045 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E E-25 1.50 1.40 Tp ratio (FLO-2D/HMS) 1.30 1.20 1.10 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 floodplain roughness Figure E - 40 – Comparison of floodplain roughness to FLO-2D/HMS time to peak ratio, DVR off JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. 0.045 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E E-26 4.00 3.50 3.00 discharge ratio (FLO-2D/HMS) 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 floodplain roughness Figure E - 41 – Comparison of floodplain roughness to FLO-2D/HMS discharge ratio, DVR on JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. 0.045 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E E-27 1.50 1.40 Tp ratio (FLO-2D/HMS) 1.30 1.20 1.10 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 floodplain roughness Figure E - 42 – Comparison of floodplain roughness to FLO-2D/HMS time to peak ratio, DVR on JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. 0.045 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E E-28 3.00 2.50 discharge ratio (FLO-2D/HMS) 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 shallow roughness Figure E - 43 – Comparison of shallow roughness to FLO-2D/HMS discharge ratio, DVR off JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. 0.300 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E E-29 1.50 1.40 Tp ratio (FLO-2D/HMS) 1.30 1.20 1.10 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 shallow roughness Figure E - 44 – Comparison of shallow roughness to FLO-2D/HMS time to peak ratio, DVR off JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. 0.300 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E E-30 4.00 3.50 3.00 discharge ratio (FLO-2D/HMS) 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 shallow roughness Figure E - 45 – Comparison of shallow roughness to FLO-2D/HMS discharge ratio, DVR on JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. 0.300 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E E-31 1.50 1.40 Tp ratio (FLO-2D/HMS) 1.30 1.20 1.10 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 shallow roughness Figure E - 46 – Comparison of shallow roughness to FLO-2D/HMS time to peak ratio, DVR on JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. 0.300 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E E-32 Table E - 16– Summary of calibration model results Sub-model CU1 CU1 CU1 CU1 CU1 CU1 CU1 CU1 CU1 CU1 CU1 CU1 CU2 CU2 CU2 CU2 CU2 CU2 CU3 CU3 CU3 CU3 CU3 CU3 CU4 CU4 CU4 CU4 CU4 CU4 FR1 FR1 FR1 FR1 FR1 FR1 - A B C D E F G H I J K L A B C D E F A B C D E F A B C D E F A B C D E F Shallow Roughness Floodplain roughness Depth varied roughness Q-100, 24hour (cfs) Ratio of FLO-2D Q to HMS Q Time of peak (hr) Ratio of FLO-2D Tp to HMS Tp (adjusted to hour 12) 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.010 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.010 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.010 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.010 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.010 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.010 0.035 0.010 0.020 0.025 0.030 off off off off off off on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on off off on on on on 1396 589 548 564 530 525 686 579 532 526 516 506 1481 591 639 533 509 487 1992 722 834 528 511 468 1945 697 892 792 486 449 1011 973 1034 1005 981 954 2.40 0.99 0.92 0.95 0.89 0.88 1.20 0.97 0.90 0.89 0.87 0.85 2.49 0.99 1.08 0.90 0.86 0.82 3.35 1.22 1.40 0.89 0.86 0.79 3.27 1.17 1.50 1.33 0.82 0.76 0.80 0.77 0.82 0.80 0.78 0.76 22.9 23.1 23.2 23.1 23.4 23.5 23.0 23.2 23.3 23.4 23.5 23.6 23.3 23.2 23.8 23.5 23.5 23.7 23.1 24.3 23.8 23.6 23.7 23.7 23.9 24.0 23.7 23.8 23.8 23.9 23.9 24.2 23.9 24.1 24.2 24.4 0.99 1.01 1.02 1.01 1.04 1.05 1.00 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.05 1.03 1.02 1.07 1.05 1.05 1.06 1.01 1.12 1.07 1.05 1.06 1.06 1.08 1.09 1.06 1.07 1.07 1.08 0.98 1.01 0.98 1.00 1.01 1.02 JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E E-33 Table E - 16– Summary of calibration model results (continued) Sub-model FR1 FR1 FR2 FR2 FR2 FR2 FR2 FR2 FR2 FR2 FR2 FR2 FR2 FR2 FR3 FR3 FR3 FR3 FR3 FR3 FR3 FR3 FR3 FR3 FR3 FR3 FR4 FR4 FR4 FR4 FR4 FR4 FR5 FR5 FR5 FR5 - G H A B C D E F G H I J K L A B C D E F G H I J K L A B C D E F A B C D Shallow Roughness Floodplain roughness Depth varied roughness Q-100, 24hour (cfs) Ratio of FLO-2D Q to HMS Q Time of peak (hr) Ratio of FLO-2D Tp to HMS Tp (adjusted to hour 12) 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.035 0.040 0.010 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.010 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.010 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.010 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.010 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.010 0.020 0.025 0.030 on on off off off off off off on on on on on on off off off off off off on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on 920 894 1625 1735 1074 1330 896 802 1268 1633 1024 837 894 767 2169 1007 902 1291 869 1222 1766 1025 1351 1328 988 825 1915 988 905 963 822 605 2,593 1,446 1,563 1,310 0.73 0.71 1.29 1.38 0.85 1.06 0.71 0.64 1.01 1.30 0.81 0.67 0.71 0.61 1.72 0.80 0.72 1.03 0.69 0.97 1.40 0.81 1.07 1.06 0.79 0.66 1.52 0.79 0.72 0.77 0.65 0.48 2.06 1.15 1.24 1.04 24.6 24.9 28.7 24.6 24.6 24.8 25.0 25.3 24.0 24.7 24.7 25.2 25.0 25.7 27.8 28.7 26.0 26.0 25.9 25.7 27.3 25.3 25.7 26.2 26.1 25.9 26.7 26.2 27.2 26.6 26.5 26.6 28.5 26.9 27.5 27.8 1.04 1.07 1.38 1.04 1.04 1.06 1.07 1.10 0.99 1.05 1.05 1.09 1.07 1.13 1.31 1.38 1.16 1.16 1.15 1.13 1.26 1.10 1.13 1.17 1.17 1.15 1.21 1.17 1.26 1.21 1.20 1.21 1.36 1.23 1.28 1.31 JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E E-34 Table E - 16– Summary of calibration model results (continued) Sub-model FR5 FR5 PR1 PR1 PR1 PR1 PR1 PR1 PR1 PR1 PR1 PR2 PR2 PR2 PR2 PR2 PR2 PR3 PR3 PR3 PR3 PR3 PR3 PR4 PR4 PR4 PR4 PR4 PR4 PR5 PR5 PR5 PR5 PR5 PR5 - E F A B C D E F G H I A B C D E F A B C D E F A B C D E F A B C D E F Shallow Roughness Floodplain roughness Depth varied roughness Q-100, 24hour (cfs) Ratio of FLO-2D Q to HMS Q Time of peak (hr) Ratio of FLO-2D Tp to HMS Tp (adjusted to hour 12) 0.250 0.250 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.035 0.040 0.015 0.035 0.005 0.010 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.010 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.010 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.010 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.010 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 on on off off on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on 1,182 546 1458 1044 2842 1552 1102 1055 1013 974 943 3423 1564 1137 846 815 794 3523 2109 1035 736 733 697 3480 2783 1640 1514 926 663 3495 2266 1682 1494 1176 856 0.94 0.43 1.29 0.92 2.51 1.37 0.97 0.93 0.89 0.86 0.83 3.02 1.38 1.00 0.75 0.72 0.70 3.11 1.86 0.91 0.65 0.65 0.61 3.07 2.45 1.45 1.34 0.82 0.58 3.08 2.00 1.48 1.32 1.04 0.75 27.7 28.6 26.4 24.3 26.8 23.0 24.0 24.2 24.5 24.8 25.1 24.6 23.8 23.9 25.8 26.2 26.1 23.4 24.4 23.4 24.3 26.4 27.0 24.8 26.6 24.8 24.8 24.5 24.7 25.2 25.5 25.2 24.9 25.0 25.2 1.30 1.37 1.12 0.95 1.15 0.85 0.93 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.02 0.98 0.91 0.92 1.07 1.10 1.09 0.88 0.96 0.88 0.95 1.12 1.16 0.99 1.13 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.98 1.02 1.05 1.02 1.00 1.01 1.02 JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E E.3 E-35 Large-Scale Model Variations Several variations of the large-scale model have been developed following the calibration routine. The purpose of this exercise is to quantify the effects of changing assorted variables. Table E - 17 summarizes the variable input for 10 models of the entire basin on a 400-foot grid. A total of 377 flow recording cross sections were cut for each model with the average discharge for these sections recorded in Table E - 17. Table E - 17 - Summary of 400-foot Grid Input Parameters Model Floodplain roughness Shallow roughness DVR Average Discharge for 377 Cross Sections Piedmont areas Hillslope areas A 0.035 0.053 0.10 off 1,052 B 0.035 0.053 0.15 off 952 C 0.035 0.053 0.20 off 910 D 0.035 0.053 0.25 off 931 E 0.035 0.053 0.10 on 1,064 F 0.035 0.053 0.15 on 918 G 0.035 0.053 0.20 on 833 H 0.035 0.053 0.25 on 807 I 0.030 0.040 0.10 on 1,075 J 0.030 0.040 0.15 on 930 The peak discharges at several key locations have been compared. Figure E - 47 shows the locations of these flow recording cross sections. The peak discharges recorded at these cross sections, for models E through J, have been listed in Table E - 18. Note that the trends shown for models E through H are similar to those for models A through D. JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E Figure E - 47 - Location map of comparative flow recording cross sections (numbers shown are cross section numbers) JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. E-36 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E E-37 Table E - 18 - Peak Discharges from 400-foot Large-Scale Model Variations Cross Section Model / Shallow roughness value E F G H I J 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.10 0.15 1 14,832 11,892 10,168 9,004 14,791 11,805 2 962 985 1,003 1,027 989 1,007 5 7,337 5,807 4,967 4,364 7,163 5,728 6 7,807 6,227 5,294 4,771 7,806 6,312 7 2,606 2,197 2,000 1,726 2,621 2,242 8 5,024 4,000 4,514 4,304 4,974 3,923 14 4,278 3,575 3,202 3,043 4,112 3,525 41 1,022 827 747 648 1,033 850 45 849 651 544 615 844 651 77 15,371 12,810 10,928 9,645 15,341 12,724 79 188 158 153 152 189 158 80 1,472 1,237 1,120 1,072 1,502 1,250 216 2,275 1,715 1,465 1,251 2,247 1,689 282 3,238 3,705 4,064 4,009 3,437 4,241 The results summarized above indicate that changing the shallow roughness coefficient can have a considerable impact, especially on the most downstream cross sections. A change from 0.10 to 0.15 has the effect of decreasing the discharge at the lowest cross section by over 2,500 cfs or 16 percent. The results also indicate that lowering the floodplain roughness coefficient from 0.035 on the piedmont to 0.030 and from 0.053 on the hillslopes to 0.040 has a less significant impact on the predicted peak discharge values. A couple of observations should be pointed out. First, cross sections 2 and 282 both predict greater discharges with increasing shallow roughness, contrary to the trend observed in the other cross sections. Second, if the depth varied roughness is turned off, the peak discharge in cross section 282 is 3,526 cfs in Model A and over 6,600 cfs in Model D. A 200-foot grid model was also developed. The peak discharges (at key locations) and flow depths were compared between the 200-foot grid and 400-foot grid models. With shallow roughness of 0.10 and floodplain roughness of 0.030 on the piedmont and 0.040 on the hillslopes, the ultimate discharge at the outfall of the model is 16,531 cfs for the 200-foot grid model and 15,371 cfs for the 400-foot grid model. The following table compares the flow depths predicted by the 200-foot and 400-foot grid models with the above mentioned roughness values. JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix E E-38 Table E - 19 - Comparison of Predicted Flow Depths – 200-foot and 400-foot Grids Threshold Depth (ft) 400-ft grid model 200-ft grid model Percent above threshold Area (sq mi) above threshold Percent above threshold Area (sq mi) above threshold 0.03 94.9% 119.6 87.9% 111.5 0.2 55.5% 70.0 48.9% 62.0 0.5 9.5% 12.0 9.5% 12.0 1 2.6% 3.3 2.3% 2.9 2 0.9% 1.2 0.8% 1.0 The above table is useful in determining a threshold depth for delineating the flood limits. JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix F Appendix F - Verification of Volume Conservation JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. F-1 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix F F F-2 Verification of Volume Conservation This appendix is included to account for the flow volume within the study area. F.1 Routing Diagram The following diagrams show how the 7 sub-models are connected along with inflow and outflow points and volumes for the 3-hour storm and the 24-hour storm. Figure F - 1 - FLO-2D 100-year, 3-hour Sub-model routing diagram JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix F Figure F - 2 - FLO-2D 100-year, 24-hour Sub-model routing diagram The following table summarizes the inflow, outflow, and rainfall for each of the models. JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. F-3 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix F F-4 Table F - 1 - Volume summaries for FLO-2D sub-models Model Name Geometry Grid element spacing (ft) Elevation data source Number of elements - total Number of elements - outflow Number of elements net Area (sq mi) net Average CN Rainfall and runoff (in) Precipitation depth* Infiltration and b Interception* c Runoff (a-b) a d e f Inflow volume (ac-ft) Rainfall* Total inflow hydrograph* Rainfall and inflow (d+e) g h i Loss volume (ac-ft) Infiltration and Interception* Storage* Total loss (g+h) j j1 j2 j3 j4 Outflow volume (ac-ft) Total outflow* Outflow to Model 1** Outflow to Model 2** Outflow to Model 3** Outflow to Model 4** 0 Model Name 200 USGS DEM 23,430 285 23,145 33.21 86.3 3-hr 3.74 1.38 24-hr 4.83 1.47 2.36 3.36 3-hr 6,624 0 6,624 1 Geometry Grid element spacing (ft) Elevation data source Number of elements - total Number of elements - outflow Number of elements net Area (sq mi) net Average CN 100 PAG 30,440 111 30,329 10.88 83.8 Rainfall and runoff (in) Precipitation depth* Infiltration and b Interception* Runoff (a-b) c 3-hr 3.23 1.54 24-hr 4.19 1.67 1.69 2.52 24-hr 8,554 0 8,554 Inflow volume (ac-ft) Rainfall* d Total inflow hydrograph* e e1 Inflow from Model 0 f Rainfall and inflow (d+e) 3-hr 1,874 1,789 1,789 3,663 24-hr 2,431 2,719 2,719 5,150 3-hr 24-hr 3-hr 24-hr 2,441 631 3,073 2,602 630 3,232 Loss volume (ac-ft) Infiltration and Interception* Storage* Total loss (g+h) 889 230 1,119 965 230 1,195 3-hr 3,551 1,789 690 1,010 70 24-hr 5,322 2,719 1,017 1,515 103 3-hr 2,544 1,572 732 240 24-hr 3,955 2,434 1,148 373 Note * - Values recorded directly by FLO-2D SUMMARY.DAT file Note ** - Values are those recorded by downstream model, some volume error occurs due to rounding errors JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. a g h i j Outflow volume (ac-ft) Total outflow* j1 Outflow to Model 5 j2 Outflow 3** j3 Outflow 4*** Note * - Values recorded directly by FLO-2D SUMMARY.DAT file Note ** - Recorded by CS 1-001 Note *** - Recorded by CS 1-002 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix F Model Name 2 Geometry Grid element spacing (ft) Elevation data source Number of elements - total Number of elements - outflow Number of elements net Area (sq mi) net Average CN Model Name 100 PAG 31,184 100 31,084 11.15 85.1 Rainfall and runoff (in) Precipitation depth* a Infiltration and b Interception* Runoff (a-b) c 3-hr 3.35 1.45 24-hr 4.40 1.57 1.90 Inflow volume (ac-ft) Rainfall* Total inflow hydrograph* Inflow from Model 0 Rainfall and inflow (d+e) Loss volume (ac-ft) Infiltration and Interception* Storage* Total loss (g+h) d e e1 f g h i Outflow volume (ac-ft) j Total outflow* j1 Outflow to Model 5 F-5 3 Geometry Grid element spacing (ft) Elevation data source Number of elements - total Number of elements - outflow Number of elements net Area (sq mi) net Average CN 100 PAG 38,970 82 38,888 13.95 84.4 3-hr 3.45 1.52 24-hr 4.50 1.64 2.83 Rainfall and runoff (in) Precipitation depth* a Infiltration and b Interception* Runoff (a-b) c 1.93 2.86 3-hr 1,992 690 690 2,682 24-hr 2,617 1,017 1,017 3,634 d e e1 f Inflow volume (ac-ft) Rainfall* Total inflow hydrograph* Inflow from Model 0 Rainfall and inflow (d+e) 3-hr 2,567 1,010 1,010 3,576 24-hr 3,348 1,515 1,515 4,862 3-hr 24-hr 3-hr 24-hr 863 213 1,076 933 213 1,145 g h i Loss volume (ac-ft) Infiltration and Interception* Storage* Total loss (g+h) 1,128 268 1,396 1,219 267 1,486 3-hr 1,606 1,606 24-hr 2,489 2,489 3-hr 2,181 2,181 24-hr 3,376 3,376 Note * - Values recorded directly by FLO-2D SUMMARY.DAT file JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Outflow volume (ac-ft) j Total outflow* j1 Outflow to Model 5 Note * - Values recorded directly by FLO-2D SUMMARY.DAT file Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix F Model Name 4 Geometry Grid element spacing (ft) Elevation data source Number of elements - total Number of elements - outflow Number of elements net Area (sq mi) net Average CN Model Name 100 PAG 73,102 178 55,965 26.16 84.9 3-hr 3.42 1.47 24-hr 4.45 1.59 1.95 2.86 Rainfall and runoff (in) Precipitation depth* a Infiltration and b Interception* Runoff (a-b) c Inflow volume (ac-ft) Rainfall* Total inflow hydrograph* Inflow from Model 0 Inflow from Stantec J9 Inflow from Stantec J11 Inflow from Stantec CUe4 J1 e5 Inflow from J4 flow split Rainfall and inflow (d+e) f 3-hr 4,771 2,290 70 1,750 519 149 24-hr 6,208 3,575 103 2,471 746 219 d e e1 e2 e3 f 71 7,361 37 9,783 Loss volume (ac-ft) Infiltration and Interception* Storage* Total loss (g+h) 3-hr 24-hr 2,049 502 2,551 2,213 501 2,714 g h i 3-hr 4,810 4,810 24-hr 7,069 7,069 j g h i j Outflow volume (ac-ft) Total outflow* j1 Outflow to Model 5 Note * - Values recorded directly by FLO-2D SUMMARY.DAT file JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. 5 Geometry Grid element spacing (ft) Elevation data source Number of elements - total Number of elements - outflow Number of elements net Area (sq mi) net Average CN Rainfall and runoff (in) Precipitation depth* a Infiltration and b Interception* Runoff (a-b) c d e e1 e2 e3 F-6 100 PAG 74,768 357 74,411 26.69 85.4 3-hr 3.24 1.41 24-hr 4.21 1.52 1.83 2.69 Inflow volume (ac-ft) Rainfall* Total inflow hydrograph* Inflow from Model 2 Inflow from Model 3 Inflow from Model 4 Rainfall and inflow (d+e) 3-hr 4,612 8,635 1,606 2,181 4,810 13,247 24-hr 5,993 12,936 2,489 3,376 7,069 18,929 Loss volume (ac-ft) Infiltration and Interception* Storage* Total loss (g+h) 3-hr 24-hr 1,999 516 2,515 2,159 516 2,675 3-hr 10,731 9,686 1,045 24-hr 16,253 14,884 1,369 Outflow volume (ac-ft) Total outflow* j1 Outflow to Model 6 j2 Outflow 2** Note * - Values recorded directly by FLO-2D SUMMARY.DAT file Note ** - Recorded by CS 5-199 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix F Model Name 6 Geometry Grid element spacing (ft) Elevation data source Number of elements - total Number of elements - outflow Number of elements net Area (sq mi) net Average CN Model Name 100 PAG 39,853 4 39,849 14.29 85.1 Rainfall and runoff (in) Precipitation depth* a Infiltration and b Interception* Runoff (a-b) c 3-hr 2.87 1.37 24-hr 3.76 1.50 1.50 2.26 Inflow volume (ac-ft) Rainfall* d Total inflow hydrograph* e e1 Inflow from Model 1 e2 Inflow from Model 5 Rainfall and inflow (d+e) f 3-hr 2,185 11,250 1,572 9,686 13,435 24-hr 2,862 17,318 2,434 14,884 20,180 3-hr 24-hr 1,032 306 1,338 1,126 309 1,435 3-hr 12,046 12,109 24-hr 18,743 18,765 g h i Loss volume (ac-ft) Infiltration and Interception* Storage* Total loss (g+h) Outflow volume (ac-ft) j Total outflow* j1 Outflow 1** Note * - Values recorded directly by FLO-2D SUMMARY.DAT file Note ** - Recorded by CS 6-001 JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. F-7 Combination Geometry Grid element spacing (ft) Elevation data source Number of elements - total Number of elements - outflow Number of elements net Area (sq mi) net Average CN Inflow volume (ac-ft) Rainfall* d Total inflow hydrograph (e1+e2+e3+e4) e e1 Inflow from Stantec J9 Inflow from Stantec J11 e2 Inflow from Stantec CUe3 J1 Inflow from J4 flow split e4 Rainfall and inflow (d+e) f g h i j Loss volume (ac-ft) Infiltration and Interception* Storage* Total loss (g+h) Outflow volume (ac-ft) Total outflow j1 Outflow 1 j2 Outflow 2 j3 Outflow 3 j4 Outflow 4 n/a n/a 294,788 1,117 293,671 136 85.2 3-hr 24,625 2,489 24-hr 30,012 3,472 1,750 519 2,471 746 149 219 71 37 27,114 35,485 3-hr 24-hr 10,401 2,666 13,066 11,216 2,666 13,882 3-hr 14,126 12,109 1,045 732 240 24-hr 21,655 18,765 1,369 1,148 373 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix G Appendix G - Comparison of FLO-2D and HEC-HMS Results JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. G-1 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix G G-2 Table G - 1 - Verification of sub-basin characteristics Precip. (in) p100-3 p100-24 Sheet flow L (ft) S (ft/ft) Shallow flow L (ft) S (ft/ft) Chan. flow L (ft) v (fps) 88.57 3.74 4.83 100 0.2 1840 0.41 9310 8 22 2.869 87.69 3.74 4.83 100 0.1 1700 0.42 13655 3.2 38 2-2A 0.489 86.14 3.35 4.40 100 0.036 2090 0.046 12310 6 34 4 2-2B 0.970 86.20 3.37 4.43 100 0.041 1940 0.052 19340 5.9 45 5 J2-2 1.459 N/A 3.36 4.41 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6 2-2C 0.067 83.00 3.35 4.40 100 0.03 600 0.03 2365 1.6 23 7 2-3A 0.219 86.33 3.35 4.40 100 0.03 970 0.009 5085 4 27 8 2-3A&B 1.747 86.10 3.35 4.40 100 0.03 850 0.058 18550 4 56 9 2-4A 0.074 79.00 3.28 4.27 100 0.021 1380 0.021 3080 1.4 35 10 2-4B 0.113 79.00 3.31 4.30 100 0.02 1240 0.02 3725 1.5 38 11 2-4C 0.088 79.00 3.36 4.41 100 0.025 890 0.025 2960 2.8 20 12 2-5 0.056 83.00 3.35 4.40 100 0.023 2180 0.025 1984 0.023 26 13 3-1 7.760 89.52 3.74 4.83 100 0.33 1400 0.44 24960 5.5 50 14 4-1 0.800 88.26 3.47 4.53 100 0.57 1200 0.52 11210 8 19 Model Number Test Area Area (sq mi) CN 1 1-1 0.813 2 1-2 3 JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. T-lag (min) Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix G G-3 Table G - 1 - Verification of sub-basin characteristics (continued) Precip. (in) p100-3 p100-24 Sheet flow L (ft) S (ft/ft) Shallow flow L (ft) S (ft/ft) Chan. flow L (ft) v (fps) 85.66 3.45 4.50 100 0.54 1100 0.48 7225 11 13 0.590 88.72 3.46 4.51 100 0.3 1110 0.045 9980 15 16 J4-4 1.725 86.26 3.45 4.50 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 18 5-1 1.625 87.31 3.52 4.58 100 0.43 380 0.05 3220 7 31 19 5-2 0.643 80.68 3.42 4.45 100 0.43 930 0.5 10130 5.4 24 20 5-3 0.116 80.19 3.45 4.50 100 0.43 900 0.5 17730 6 19 21 6-1 0.936 83.70 3.42 4.45 100 0.47 600 0.51 8490 8 17 22 7-1 1.034 85.03 3.45 4.45 100 0.47 850 0.51 12370 4.8 31 23 7-2 0.668 87.70 3.45 4.45 100 0.58 640 0.5 9270 5.9 21 24 Stantec FL-J9 14.390 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 25 Stantec FL-J11 4.640 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 26 Stantec CU-J1 1.470 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 27 Stantec FR-J2 11.050 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 28 Stantec FR-J4 3.700 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Model Number Test Area Area (sq mi) CN 15 4-2 0.511 16 4-3 17 JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. T-lag (min) Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix G G-4 Table G - 2 - Verification of sub-basin FLO-2D results Model Number Test Area CS Label Storm Q (cfs) T (hr) V (ac-ft) q* (cfs/sq mi) Q-ratio T-ratio 1 1-1 0-068 3-hour 24-hour 1721 564 1.88 10.42 83 121 2117 694 3.1 0.18 2 1-2 0-067 3-hour 24-hour 4083 2093 2.12 10.49 348 516 1423 730 2.0 0.20 3 2-2A 2-110 3-hour 24-hour 374 211 2.13 10.54 42 66 765 431 1.8 0.20 4 2-2B 2-109 3-hour 24-hour 552 339 2.56 11.21 84 133 569 349 1.6 0.23 5 J2-2 2-044 3-hour 24-hour 824 497 2.44 11.06 125 200 565 341 1.7 0.22 6 2-2C 2-108 3-hour 24-hour 58 28 1.81 10.26 6 10 866 418 2.1 0.18 7 2-3A 2-074 3-hour 24-hour 368 202 1.80 10.15 20 31 1680 922 1.8 0.18 8 2-3A&B 2-075 3-hour 24-hour 924 602 2.62 11.18 154 246 529 345 1.5 0.23 9 2-4A 5-213 3-hour 24-hour 34 25 2.25 22.76 10 17 459 338 1.4 0.10 10 2-4B 5-212 3-hour 24-hour 56 32 2.35 22.82 13 20 496 283 1.8 0.10 11 2-4C 2-282 3-hour 24-hour 86 50 1.54 10.26 7 12 977 568 1.7 0.15 12 2-5 2-217 3-hour 24-hour 50 26 1.89 10.41 5 8 893 464 1.9 0.18 13 3-1 3-041 3-hour 24-hour 6957 4346 2.26 11.00 888 1344 897 560 1.6 0.21 14 4-1 3-153 3-hour 24-hour 2679 635 1.85 10.23 85 127 3349 794 4.2 0.18 * Assumes the FLO-2D drainage area is equal to that delineated for HEC-HMS JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix G G-5 Table G - 2 - Verification of sub-basin FLO-2D results (continued) Model Number Test Area CS Label Storm 3-hour 24-hour Q (cfs) 915 365 T (hr) 1.83 10.23 V (ac-ft) 47 72 q* (cfs/sq mi) 1791 714 Q-ratio T-ratio 15 4-2 3-235 2.5 0.18 16 4-3 3-238 3-hour 24-hour 1259 481 1.82 10.25 68 100 2134 815 2.6 0.18 17 J4-4 3-231 3-hour 24-hour 2181 992 2.08 10.58 158 241 1264 575 2.2 0.20 18 5-1 4-010 3-hour 24-hour 2416 1177 2.03 10.32 166 251 1487 724 2.1 0.20 19 5-2 4-011 3-hour 24-hour 712 299 2.05 10.54 45 74 1107 465 2.4 0.19 20 5-3 3-152 3-hour 24-hour 134 61 1.93 10.23 10 16 1155 526 2.2 0.19 21 6-1 4-174 3-hour 24-hour 954 467 1.99 10.42 80 125 1019 499 2.0 0.19 22 7-1 4-124 3-hour 24-hour 1019 497 1.94 10.51 91 140 985 481 2.1 0.18 23 7-2 4-130 3-hour 24-hour 933 431 2.08 10.50 70 107 1397 645 2.2 0.20 24 Stantec FL-J9 N/A 3-hour 24-hour N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 25 Stantec FL-J11 N/A 3-hour 24-hour N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 26 Stantec CU-J1 N/A 3-hour 24-hour N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 27 Stantec FR-J2 N/A 3-hour 24-hour N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 28 Stantec FR-J4 N/A 3-hour 24-hour N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A * Assumes the FLO-2D drainage area is equal to that delineated for HEC-HMS JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix G G-6 Table G - 3 - Verification of sub-basin HEC-HMS results Model Number Test Area Storm Q (cfs) T (hr) V (ac-ft) q (cfs/sq mi) Q-ratio T-ratio 1 1-1 3-hour 24-hour 1607 697 1.83 10.17 110 155 1977 857 2.3 0.18 2 1-2 3-hour 24-hour 3748 1875 2.17 10.50 377 532 1306 654 2.0 0.21 3 2-2A 3-hour 24-hour 555 282 2.08 10.42 76 52 1135 577 2.0 0.20 4 2-2B 3-hour 24-hour 908 491 2.25 10.58 153 104 936 506 1.8 0.21 5 J2-2 3-hour 24-hour 1423 757 2.17 10.50 155 229 975 519 1.9 0.21 6 2-2C 3-hour 24-hour 86 40 1.83 10.25 6 9 1284 597 2.2 0.18 7 2-3A 3-hour 24-hour 294 141 1.92 10.25 23 34 1342 644 2.1 0.19 8 2-3A&B 3-hour 24-hour 1385 785 2.50 10.83 186 274 793 449 1.8 0.23 9 2-4A 3-hour 24-hour 57 30 2.08 10.42 6 9 770 405 1.9 0.20 10 2-4B 3-hour 24-hour 83 44 2.17 10.50 9 13 735 389 1.9 0.21 11 2-4C 3-hour 24-hour 103 48 1.83 10.17 7 11 1170 545 2.1 0.18 12 2-5 3-hour 24-hour 67 32 1.92 10.25 5 8 1196 571 2.1 0.19 13 3-1 3-hour 24-hour 8893 4660 2.33 10.67 1088 1516 1146 601 1.9 0.22 14 4-1 3-hour 24-hour 1518 655 1.75 10.17 97 139 1898 819 2.3 0.17 JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix G G-7 Table G - 3 - Verification of sub-basin HEC-HMS results (continued) Model Number Test Area Storm Q (cfs) T (hr) V (ac-ft) q (cfs/sq mi) Q-ratio T-ratio 15 4-2 3-hour 24-hour 1078 423 1.67 10.08 55 81 2110 828 2.5 0.17 16 4-3 3-hour 24-hour 1271 515 1.75 10.08 72 103 2154 873 2.5 0.17 17 J4-4 3-hour 24-hour 2679 1207 1.83 10.25 199 285 1553 700 2.2 0.18 18 5-1 3-hour 24-hour 2226 1079 2.00 10.33 193 278 1370 664 2.1 0.19 19 5-2 3-hour 24-hour 748 354 1.92 10.25 56 85 1163 551 2.1 0.19 20 5-3 3-hour 24-hour 214 80 1.67 10.08 10 15 1845 690 2.7 0.17 21 6-1 3-hour 24-hour 1559 655 1.75 10.08 92 137 1666 700 2.4 0.17 22 7-1 3-hour 24-hour 1250 607 2.00 10.33 109 158 1209 587 2.1 0.19 23 7-2 3-hour 24-hour 1171 509 1.83 10.17 78 111 1753 762 2.3 0.18 24 Stantec FLJ9 3-hour 24-hour 7400 5772 2.30 11.70 1537 2471 514 401 1.28 0.20 25 Stantec FLJ11 3-hour 24-hour 2330 1840 2.00 11.30 453 746 502 397 1.27 0.18 26 Stantec CUJ1 3-hour 24-hour 1022 684 1.40 10.90 148 219 695 465 1.49 0.13 27 Stantec FRJ2 3-hour 24-hour 3231 2712 3.50 13.00 1031 1704 292 245 1.19 0.27 28 Stantec FRJ4 3-hour 24-hour 1601 1282 2.58 11.90 361 592 433 346 1.25 0.22 JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix H Appendix H - Plates and Exhibits JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. H-1 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study – Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis Report Appendix H Plate 1 - Northern Flow Splits Plate 2 - FLO-2D Predicted 10-year and 100-year Flood Limits with Significant Flow Paths and Concentration Points Exhibit 1 - Velocity and Depth Maps JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. H-2 0 HARRISON RD FR10 FL19 9 9 Unknown DAWN RD Un kn CS20, 2195 FR8 [ 9 CS51, 934 9 CS12, 942 9 CS61, 0 9 9 CS10, 1040 9 9 4 9 06 9 9 S2 5 C 9 68 13 9, CS53, 2429 9 CS55, 6614 CS52, 613 9 CS56, 90 CS22, 6379 9 9 CS54, 2969 9 9 CS24, 3776 9 CS23, 1538 9 CS7, 1599 CS8, 1010 ,1 9 9 CS50, 3762 CS49, 19909 CS43, 4 1.001 - 2.000 2000 cfs washes (per Pima County GIS) [ [[ FL10 [ [ [[ [ 9 CU5 9 9 CS21, 219 CS44, 2936 9 9 CS42, 107 9 CS17, 574 HARRISON RD Streets (all) 9 9 0.501 - 1.000 2.001 - 3.000 HEC-HMS Basins (Stantec) 3.001 - 4.000 Full Model Boundary 4.001 - 7.000 FL13 [[[[ J2 Model Area I10 R AM P U n kn o w n n F r a n co W as h 9 CU2 E ANDRADA RD E ANDRADA RD U nk no wn 9 F la t U nk n DAWN RD FL15 J4 Model 9 24 6 U nk WILMOT RD CS2, 404 9 S4 , U n kn ow n ow n Wash 9 C sh no J4 Model Area wn HOUGHTON RD 9 9 Petty R anch n Wa BREKKE RD h W as [ 57 ,1 6 S CS1, 1318 C o lia I10 9 FR8 Ju I10 HARRISON RD 9 ow CS3, 863 9 Flow Recording Sections w/ CS #, Peak Q-100,24 Streets (major) 9 9 Depth (Feet) 9 9 9 CU9 9 9 CU4 FL14 9 9 [ [ [ [ Flow Depth at Cell Inflow Point 0.020 - 0.500 9 9 9 9 WILMOT RD 40 kn Un FR11 DAWN RD [ 9 9 C 27 ,3 8 S4 7 98 9 9 sh 9, S5 0, S6 9 9 9 C n Wa C 9 [ [ [CU6 [[ [ [ FR9 E DAWN RD Fag a C 9 9 E PIMA MINE RANCH RD 9 9 CU7 FR7 9 [[[ [ [ 9 CU10 9 [ [[ [ 9 9 ow n 15 10 , S5 £ FR6 CS11, 1359 CS45, 1068 9 FL15 Cuprite Wash 9 9 9 CS13, 282 wn CS9, 2747 9 CS30, 3627 Un kn o 9 CS18, 2518 9 9 9 9 CS2, 1372 FR5 9 CS14, 3300 9 9 CS1, 2383 FL16 HOUGHTON RD CS19, 1219 9 CU8 9 9 Un kn Plate 1 Northern Flow Splits CS46, 1174 9 9 [[ [ [ Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study FLO-2D Analysis 9 9 CS15, 861 9 CS31, 2829 9 9 9 [ I1 0 J12 Model ow n S HOUGHTON RD CS47, 1282 9 9 CS16, 1811 CS40, 889 CS62, 4 CS3, 42 CS32,9 27 [ [ [ [ 9 9 S WILMOT RD [ [ FR2 FR3 9 9 PR2 [ 9 PR1 [ [ I1 0 S2 9 9 9 9 ch Wash FR9 E DAWN RD [ I1 0 I1 0 9 9 U n kn o w n C up r i t e J12 Model Area Wa sh F ag an W a sh 0.2 Miles 2 Miles Rillit t u 77 U V 10 10 ru z R iver San ta C h as tio nc Ju ree k Ci en eg aC River 9 83 V U sh Wa W ie ld n 9 h as W 10 Miles n yo an et r O 0 2.5 5 xC Bo m De [ Cruz HARRISON RD       BREKKE RD 9 9 CS11, 620 Wentworth Rd. CS10, 2085 9 CS9, 966 Sahuarita Rd. Sahuarita Rd. Houghton Rd. 9 Mis sio nR d. 9 CS7, 581 S HARRISON RD 9 We s t B ra n ch 9 CS6, 641 CS8, 1142    k y. aH 9 9 Agua Verde Cree oit Son 9 CS4, 1120 h CS2, 611 k as 10 ree W    C con te 89 t u Rin yo Co 0 9 FL19    10 19 FR4 FR11 ash 210 V U 89 t u Pima Mine Rd. FR10 FR11 eW oyo sh Wa , S3 FR12 V U ash d Ver ue q n Ta o tan 9 C FR13 wn Unkno Chico, A rr 210 C W nte alie Pan 86 U V 9 ua Ag 10 9 9 FR17 er    h o Was Franc FR18 o Riv 89 9 S WILMOT RD 9 J2 Model Brawley Wash CS5, 845 FR20 Unknown FR16 77 t u Sabino Creek 1 9 0.5 Wilmot Rd. 0 WILMOT RD CS1, 813 9 0.05 0.1 Nogales Hy. 0 Sant a 9 9 Petty Ra n W E 9 CS38, 49 9 9 CS4, 132 9 9 9 FL17 2 Miles C 9 CS41, 17719 9 9 FL18 FR11 1 9 CS28, 4936 9 CS26, 620 9CS27, 241 9CS5, 899 9 CS6, 7079 9 9 CS33, 1022 CS34, 714 9 CS36, 997 CS35, 961 CS37, 1708 9 90 CS39, 1744 9CS63, FR12 0.5 Fortynine Was h £ 5,000 10,000 Feet 1 inch = 2,500 feet PR 3 PR 2 PR 1 DAWN RD FL PR A PR B LM 5 FA B FA A FA 2 A1 - SC 13 o ut 1 GRW A GR 12 SC 11 SC 16 SC SC D SC A 3 SC A 2 B GR 10 GR 9 C 1 SC C 2 GR 7 GR W SC 7 D G RW A 2 GR 4 GR 6 SC 8 SC 10 SC 6 CAMINO DEL TORO HARRISON RD GR 13 SAHUARITA RD SC 1 GR 3 GR 2 GR 1 MELPOMENE WY SC GRW C GR 14 SC 3 SC 2 GR 8 GR 5 SC 4 CAMINO AURELIA Y SC 5 SC 9 AH OIT SC A 1 FL 2 SON SC 12 Breakout 1 GR 11 CU 1 HARRISON RD ut 1 Br ea k FL 1 FA 1 SC o Break Breakout 2 LM 2 FA 4 LM 1 SC 15 SC 14 CU 2 D FA 3 R LM 3 N O ou t2 CU B I AT ST CU 4 CU C SH ak FL 3 Discharge (cfs) Record Q-10 Q-25 Q-100-3hr Q-100-24-hr Reported Q-100 6-121 920 1950 4630 4480 4480 6-093 310 1440 4840 4020 4020 6-133 960 3320 11330 10420 10420 CUJ1 560 790 1240 690 1240 4-293 1270 2260 4260 2050 4260 5-087 1390 2020 3210 2290 2290 6-081 2930 4890 8900 6750 6750 5-107 630 1240 2560 1930 2560 6-079 720 1490 3670 3100 3100 6-053 3360 6270 12580 9810 9810 6-013 670 1560 3330 2760 2760 6-062 2570 4750 9230 7390 7390 6-016 2530 4630 7810 6760 6760 J9 4740 6460 9840 5780 5780 J11 1460 1990 3150 1840 1840 4-324 4830 6070 7940 5690 5690 5-171 980 1480 2940 2120 2120 1-074 310 590 1560 1280 1560 BE 1-073 120 190 400 370 400 NS1-202 410 760 1930 1640 1930 ON 1-093 290 600 1290 1200 1290 6-003HY 270 520 1060 1000 1070 I130 50 1-089 130 130 140 0 6-022 60FR 140 400 400 400 ON 6-175 160 240 470 470 470 T 1-210 190 270 A 410 420 420 GE 6-011 390 710 1200 1190 1200 RD 60-47 600 1230 2820 2850 2860 6-048 920 1990 4650 4480 4480 1-002 80 200 430 410 430 1-001 270 550 1450 1420 1450 6-052 1400 2860 7080 6150 6150 6-171 2040 4350 10750 9160 9160 6-126 1620 2690 5610 4870 4870 6-017 1640 2520 5140 4130 4130 6-018 3970 6860 12830 10850 10850 6-137 3960 6830 13190 11280 11280 6-138 4160 8570 21260 19210 19210 6-019 4150 8520 20860 18980 18980 6-001 4450 8990 21910 20210 20210 6-066 290 420 690 610 690 6-067 140 360 870 550 870 6-076 330 480 1150 860 1150 6-141 310 490 1780 1070 1780 3-004 560 960 1520 1100 1520 5-110 360 570 950 740 950 5-200 510 840 1490 1130 1490 5-198 180 450 1010 760 1010 5-046 610 1190 2440 2000 2440 3-003 880 1440 2390 1800 2390 5-223 320 530 930 740 930 5-029 430 770 1480 1030 1480 6-032 340 680 1440 1250 1440 5-277 690 1260 2570 1830 2570 6-033 500 1000 2150 1680 2150 6-096 1300 2040 3650 3190 3190 6-168 1410 2890 7260 6220 6220 6-094 1180 2320 4780 4280 4280 6-143 230 500 1620 1380 1380 6-029 460 980 2240 1860 1860 R FA 5 LM A Br e CU A 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Label GR Wash breakout to west LM Wash breakout to west Breakout Flow Return US of LM Wash I1Cuprite 0 R Inflow at CUJ1 Cuprite A Flow Corridor US of Houghton CupriteMWash P A US of Wilmot I1 Wash A US of Fagan Wash A Cuprite 0 Fagan R Wash AM A US of Wilmot Fagan Wash PA US of Cuprite Wash A Fagan Wash A DS Iof 10Cuprite Wash A Fagan Wash B US of LM Wash Fagan Flow Corridor US of LM Wash Fagan Wash A US of LM Wash Flato Inflow at J9 I1 Flato trib. Inflow at J11 0 Flato Corridor US of Houghton Flato Corridor at Wilmot / Outflow 2 GR Wash A US of GR Wash B GR Wash B GR Wash A DS of GR Wash B GR Wash C US of Sahuarita GR Wash C US of GR Wash D GR Wash D US of Sahuarita GR Wash D US of GR Wash C GR Wash C DS of GR Wash D GR Wash A US of Sahuarita GR Wash A US of GR Wash B GR Wash A DS of GR Wash B GR Wash A US of GR Wash D Outflow 4 Outflow 3 LM Wash DS of Sycamore Canyon Inflow LM Wash DS of Fagan Wash B Inflow LM Wash US of breakout LM Wash US of Fagan Wash A Inflow LM Wash DS of Fagan Wash A Inflow LM Wash US of breakout flow return LM Wash DS of GR Wash breakout return LM Wash US of PR Wash Inflow LM Wash DS of PR Wash/at RR/Outflow 1 PR Wash B US of PR Wash A PR Wash A US of PR Wash B PR Wash A DS of PR Wash B PR Wash A US of LM Wash SC Wash A1 US of Sahuarita SC Wash A1 DS of Sahuarita Rd. ANDRADA RD SC Wash A2 DS of Wilmot SC Wash A3 DS of Wilmot SC Wash A1 DS of SC Washes A2 & A3 SC Wash C2 US of Sahuarita SC Wash C2 US of Sahuarita SC Wash C1 US of Sahuarita SC Wash Corridor C1 US of SC Wash A1 SC B-D Corridor US of Sahuarita SC Wash D1 US of SC Wash A1 SC Wash A1 DS of SC Washes B & C SC Wash Corridor A1, US of GR Wash SC Wash A1 US of LM Wash SC Wash A1-Breakout USONES RD WETST of LM Wash SC Wash D US of GR Wash A A FA 6 LM 4 CU 3 HOUGHTON RD LM 6 Breakout 3 WILMOT RD LM 7 ID Breakout Breakout Breakout CU CU CU CU FA FA FA FA FA FA FL FL FL FL GR GR GR GR GR GR GR GR GR GR GR GR GR GR LM LM LM LM LM LM LM LM LM PR PR PR PR SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC M NOGALES H Y LM 8 PR 4 Predicted 10-yr flood limits Predicted 100-yr flood limits 24-hour Flow Corridor National Forests Santa Rita Experimental Range Streets (major) Streets (all) Key Concentration Points Plate 2 - FLO-2D Predicted 10-year and 100-year Flood Limits with Significant Flow Paths and Concentration Points FL 4 LM 9 Significant Flow Paths CALLE RINCONA DO 2,500 Legend WENTWORTH RD 0 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study W GR B T16R15S32 S CAMINO LOMA ALTA WENTWORTH RD HOUGHTON RD HY SO NO ITA S OX CART TR S HIGH NOON TR S OCOTILLO RIDGE TR S RED HORIZON TR S VAIL DESERT TR HARRISON RD S CAMINO LOMA ALTA WILMOT RD S COPPERCUT TR S CALLE RINCONADO T17R16S16 N DAVIDSON RD N SHARON RD HOUGHTON RD HARRISON RD S SAHUARITA PL S TATANKA LN S KOLB RD HARRISON RD S DESERT SAGUARO SHADOW PL MELPOMENE WY S LANGLEY AV N SALERO VIEW RD N BRAHMA RD S MANN AV S MELVILLE AV T17R16S15 T17R16S14 E WALTS WY NE T17R16S20 T17R16S21 T17R16S22 T17R16S23 T17R15S26 T17R15S25 T17R16S30 T17R16S29 T17R16S28 T17R16S27 T17R16S26 T17R16S35 CAMINO AURELIA T17R15S28 T17R15S27 T17R15S31 T17R15S32 T17R15S33 T17R15S34 T17R15S35 T17R15S36 T17R16S31 T17R16S32 T17R16S33 T17R16S34 T18R15S06 T18R15S05 T18R15S04 T18R15S03 T18R15S02 T18R15S01 T18R16S06 T18R16S05 T18R16S04 T18R16S03 E FORESIGHT RD TR CO T17R16S19 GE MC T17R15S24 T17R15S23 S GABLER LN S ANSON LN S BEARUP LN S MYRICK LN S IRVING AV S COLUMBUS BL S ALVERNON WY T17R16S17 T17R16S11 Y T17R16S18 E IRIS PL T17R16S10 E CALLE AGASSIZ AH OIT S COUNTRY CLUB RD T17R16S09 SON T17R15S13 E VISTA MONTE DR T17R16S02 Y E SAHUARITA RD E CALLE BACARDI T17R16S03 AH OI T S COUNTRY CLUB RD DR ON SS S DELGADO RD Outflow Volumes VI EW R S DELGADO RD N ND S THREE WELLS CT NOGALES H Y O E I10 ED S CT S HY T16R16S35 E NANA DR RD NTA D OLD NOGAL E RI NC R AV AM TH DR AN D R T17R14S25 ON TATI SH S N YO AN A IT T17R14S26 MAR E MOKES MILE TR T16R16S34 E T17R15S29 T17R15S30 R T17R14S27 T17R15S22 E CAMINO AURELIA E GRACE LN T17R14S28 T17R15S21 SC TA T17R14S29 T17R15S20 R FO ED N SA E CAMINO ANTIGUA I10 GR E T17R14S30 E CAMINO DEL TORO E LUTZ RD T17R16S08 CAMINO DEL TORO SR T17R14S24 0 S T17R14S23 T17R15S14 E WILDERNESS TR T17R15S19 T17R14S22 EMODEL T16R16S26 RD Note, detailed mapping shown for Models 1 -R6,AM not P for Model 0. N SU T17R14S13 T17R15S15 TR E DAWSON RD T17R14S21 T17R14S14 T17R15S17 T17R15S18 T17R15S16 E E VIA DE LA GRACIA W SAHUARITA RD DG RI E EL TORO RD E EL TORO RD T17R14S20 T17R14S15 TA G ANDRADA RD MODEL 3 WETSTONES RD E LARKIN DR RE T17R14S16 E COMSOFT PL FR ED LAT NS SAHUARITA RD MODEL 2 ON T16R16S27 T17R16S04 T17R16S05 DR D E HILLOCK ST T17R16S07 T17R15S12 E WILEY LN E CALLE BACARDI NE AXI R T17R15S09 T17R15S08 T17R16S06 T17R15S01 T17R15S11 T17R15S10 O AM T17R14S19 K T17R14S12 T16R16S23 SAHUARITA RD FLO-2D Model Diagram T16R16S33 T16R16S32 I1 0 MODEL 4 I1 0 R E CACTUS PATCH WY C SY OUTFLOW 4 T17R14S10 T17R14S09 PA R E SAHUARITA RD T17R14S17 E DAVIS RD IT A T17R14S11 RD ANDRADA RD T17R15S02 T17R15S03 S OUTFLOW 3 AR CA NY ON NM T17R14S08 T17R14S07 U T17R15S04 T17R15S05 T17R15S07 SA H T16R16S28 1 I10 T16R16S14 E ROSLYN LN E KRYSHANN ST S I1 0 N VID AL D T17R14S01 HY N LANEY DR T17R14S02 T17R14S03 T16R16S31 T16R15S36 E ANDRADA RD T17R15S06 T17R14S04 N 0 0.91.8 Miles T16R15S35 T16R15S34 SO T16R16S22 I1 MODEL 0 W HI TE HO US E T16R14S36 E NOYES ST T17R14S18 T16R15S33 E ANDRADA RD T17R14S06 OUTFLOW 4BEN OLD NO GALE S T16R16S30 T16R15S25 MODEL E WINDY WY5 S SHARON RD T16R15S26 T16R15S27 T16R16S29 E PIMA MINE RANC H RD S NOGALES HY T16R14S35 T16R14S34 T16R14S33 T17R14S05 MP T16R16S15 DR E DAWN DR I10 OUTFLOW 3 RT16R16S21 AM P W T16R16S20 T16R14S25 T16R15S31 T16R14S31 RA MODEL 6 HY T16R15S28 T16R15S29 T16R15S30 PIMA MINE RD T16R14S32 I10 DAWN RD S PAINTED PONY TR T16R15S22 T16R16S19 T16R15S24 T16R15S23 I1 0 CE SS T16R16S16 RD W E SU OUTFLOW 2 C OUTFLOW 1 T16R16S17 NT AG E N MARGO DR T16R14S26 T16R14S27 T16R14S28 T16R14S29 T16R14S30 DAWN RD FR O T16R14S24 WILMOT RD Y T16R14S23 T16R14S22 T16R14S21 T16R14S20 T16R16S18 T16R15S13 I1 0 S WENTWORTH RD LES H NO G A E FELIX RD T16R14S19 Santa Rita Experimental Range W T16R15S14 National Forests S BIRD DOG AV S OL D OUTFLOW 1 T16R15S21 T16R15S20 T16R15S19 State Trust Land S HOUND DOG RD T16R14S13 T16R15S15 Outflow Location (with ID) N CALLE RINCONADO OUTFLOW 2 T16R15S16 T16R15S17 T16R15S18 Private Land CALLE RINCONA DO T16R14S14 Predicted Flood Inundation Maps Cover Sheet Predicted 100-yr flood limits Coronado N.F. N SOLAR DR T16R14S15 T16R14S16 T16R14S17 T16R14S18 1 2 Exhibit 1 - FLO-2D 3 Provided separately by Stantec Streets (all) S VAIL VIEW RD Cover Sheet Flow Velocities Flow Depths Flood Maps 1 inch = 3,000 feet BLM WENTWORTH RD Feet Streets (major) NOGALES HY Sheet Index 10,000 S HOUGHTON RD 5,000 HARRISON RD 2,500 S WILMOT RD 0 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study Legend E CORTO RD T17R14S31 T17R14S32 E CORTO RD T17R14S33 T17R14S34 T17R14S35 T17R14S36 T18R16S02 Sheet 1 of 3 Streets (all) 100-ft Resolution FLO-2D Model Boundary Exhibit 1 - FLO-2D Predicted Flood Inundation Maps Flow Depths 5 20 -2 0 1 T17R14S35 AVE RD T17R15S33 0 91 1, T17R15S34 1,370 6,960 S CAMINO LOMA ALTA S CAMINO LOMA ALTA S VAIL DESERT TR S RED HORIZON TR S OCOTILLO RIDGE TR N GENTLE BREEZE LN N SLATE DR N VAIL VIEW RD 1,310 N WENTWORTH RD N SHARON RD WENTWORTH RD 1,070 T17R16S16 T17R16S15 S CALLE RINCONADO MELPOMENE WY E WALTS WY T17R16S20 T17R16S21 T17R16S29 T17R16S28 T17R16S22 0 68 2, 0 30 2, E ELF OWL TR T17R16S30 1,640 0 37 1, 2,180 1,910 1,040 1,200 S GABLER LN 1,230 S HOUGHTON RD T17R15S25 0 51 2, 1,640 T17R15S36 60 1 1, T17R16S31 ED IM P T17R16S27 LE TR 0 05 3, 1,800 1,200 T17R15S35 N TOMASITA DR 7,530 1,410 1,490 S HOUND DOG RD 1, 09 0 7,160 7, 21 0 4,950 2,690 4,260 4,810 5,680 1, 08 0 S WENTWORTH RD 1,300 1, 01 0 5,690 1,530 1,730 HARRISON RD 1,210 80 8 1, T17R15S32 S SHARON RD 1, 31 0 HOUGHTON RD 1,200 2,240 2, 54 0 4,480 5,540 0 93 1, 8,140 S BIRD DOG AV 1, 12 0 2, 71 0 1, 35 0 4, 89 0 HARRISON RD 1,730 N SALERO VIEW RD N BRAHMA RD 1,160 1,500 S SAHUARITA PL 2,860 S TATANKA LN 1,600 3,530 1,300 S KOLB RD S DESERT SAGUARO SHADOW PL 1,610 0 02 1, S THREE WELLS CT S LANGLEY AV S MELVILLE AV 1,040 1,560 0 03 1, 1,050 0 39 1, 1,260 0 40 1, N CALLE RINCONADO 3,080 5,020 1,160 1,170 2,290 S MANN AV S CANDY LN 1,170 T17R15S31 1,410 T17R16S10 E CALLE AGASSIZ 0 77 2, 0 34 1, 0 19 2, CALLE RINCONA DO 1,510 1,630 1,870 1,420 1,150 2,570 2,560 1,320 1,010 1,490 1,150 1,150 T17R14S36 0 03 1, 0 90 1, 0 15 2, T17R15S26 0 56 7, 0 20 1, 1,100 T17R14S34 80 ,2 3, 22 0 1,200 1,560 1,030 S WILMOT RD 1,460 1,680 1,780 2,300 1,080 T17R14S33 0 32 1, 5,060 8,540 1,220 1,400 1,790 1,920 1,820 S ANSON LN S BEARUP LN E CORTO RD S VAIL VIEW RD 1, 72 0 2, 18 0 6,160 2,130 WILMOT RD 1,390 4,080 3,780 1,930 4,300 2,440 1,100 S ALVERNON WY CT 1,590 HY OLD NOGAL ES 3,950 3,050 2,600 2,740 S SANTA RITA RD 3,200 6,750 S MYRICK LN S IRVING AV S COLUMBUS BL S COLUMBUS BL S COUNTRY CLUB RD S ALVERNON WY S DELGADO RD S COUNTRY CLUB RD S DELGADO RD S NOGALES HY S LA POSTA RD S LA VILLITA RD NE T17R14S32 0 67 1, E FORESIGHT RD 1,410 0 59 1, T17R16S09 Y CO T17R14S31 0 07 2, 0 87 1, CAMINO AURELIA T17R16S19 W MC E CORTO RD T17R14S26 T17R15S27 0 56 1, 0 92 1, 0 18 1, T17R15S28 T17R15S29 0 70 1, 00 0 1, T17R16S17 T17R16S18 S TA VIS S T17R14S27 T17R14S25 0 71 1, L E LOMAS DR T17R16S03 0 02 1, D TE AIN SP D T17R14S28 0 13 1, E GRACE LN 7,550 W RD E COPPER CHIEF TR T17R15S24 AV R E 0 21 2, T17R15S30 0 26 7, E E NANA DR E WILEY LN WETSTONES RD E BROADVIEW DR 0 97 1, YTUM PL T17R15S23 IN EX S LI IL A IT T17R13S36 T17R14S29 Y 0 33 1, 0 94 1, T17R15S22 0 24 7, E AD ST ON GT W R T17R14S30 A W 0 15 1, E CAMINO ANTIGUA 1,210 0 40 2, T17R15S13 S TA T17R13S25 O BR ER AT DW 0 02 1, E LUTZ RD 0 12 2, 0 38 3, E CAMINO AURELIA 0 14 7, 0 SAHUARITA RD E VISTA MONTE DR W WELDON ST DR N SA 0 30 2, E GOLDEN LN 0 41 2, T17R15S21 0 83 1, 0 47 2, T17R16S08 11 T17R16S07 1, 0 13 1, E SAHUARITA RD CAMINO DEL TORO 0 88 1, M HA NT RA E 0 93 1, 0 02 1, 0 01 1, T17R15S19 0 56 1, 0 11 1, 0 06 1, T17R15S20 2,060 0 66 1, 0 17 1, W SAHUARITA RD TA G E MOKES MILE TR T16R16S34 LN T17R16S04 0 34 1, T17R15S14 R 0 39 2, T17R14S24 T17R14S23 0 01 1, 1,080 E LADY FAWN LN T17R15S15 T AF LE 0 93 1, 0 07 1, 0 18 0 1, 18 1, 0 20 1, 0 35 5, 2,390 0 79 1, G 0 21 1, T17R14S22 E CAMINO DEL TORO 0 40 1, T17R15S16 0 14 4, 0 14 2, IN TL T17R14S21 E DAWSON RD 0 17 1, 0 31 1, 0 86 1, 0 42 2, US T17R14S20 0 00 1, E WILDERNESS TR 0 37 1, 0 70 1, 0 05 2, SR T17R14S19 E VIA DE LA GRACIA T17R15S17 0 38 1, 0 13 2, 0 08 1, SG 0 55 1, 0 39 1, 0 27 1, 0 90 1, E CALLE LUNA VISTA T17R15S18 0 48 1, T17R14S13 T17R14S14 T17R14S15 E BARNES LN 0 75 1, W THREE KINGS RD TR 0 51 1, 0 57 2, 0 88 3, 0 43 1, T17R15S10 0 69 1, T17R15S12 T17R15S11 E T17R14S16 0 74 1, E COMSOFT PL 0 24 0 1, 81 3, 0 71 1, 2, 0 03 1, DG RI 0 23 1, E HILLOCK ST 0 70 1, 0 T17R15S09 25 0 12 2, RE 0 66 1, 0 79 1, T17R13S24 0 90 1, E SAHUARITA RD 0 26 1, E EL TORO RD 1,660 0 23 1, 0 68 0 1, 60 1, 0 72 1, 0 95 1, 0 54 1, F RO T16R16S27 N DR D 1,430 1,290 T17R14S17 E DAVIS RD R T17R15S08 0 75 3, I1 0 BL NTAN K T17R14S12 0 15 1, 0 70 3, E L UCCA E CALLE BACARDI T17R16S05 T17R16S06 T17R15S01 W N N SU PA R 0 15 3, 0 12 1, 0 50 1, T17R15S07 E KRYSHANN ST 0 77 1, T16R16S33 T16R16S32 ANDRADA RD W CAMINO DE LA REINA HY DO R IT A T17R14S11 T17R14S10 T17R14S09 0 16 3, T16R16S31 0 25 1, T17R15S02 ON SU N E HAY BALE TR R AR 0 22 1, 0 45 1, 0 29 3, 0 38 1, O AM 1,450 1,460 0 05 1, 0 14 3, E CACTUS PATCH WY E NOYES ST 0 21 1, T16R15S36 T16R15S35 T17R15S03 T17R15S04 0 35 1, C SY T17R14S18 U 1,070 1,450 T17R13S13 0 52 4, E PIMA MINE RANCH RD D AR T17R14S08 SA H 0 50 2, T16R16S30 0 62 1, S E SAHUARITA RD 0 95 3, 1,960 S T17R14S01 T17R14S02 T17R14S03 3,140 1,860 0 15 2, T17R15S05 BE NS T16R16S28 E ROSLYN LN 0 47 1, E I1 0 I1 0 OL NS T17R14S07 1,950 T17R14S04 T16R15S25 T16R16S29 E ANDRADA RD 0 34 2, T16R16S22 T16R16S21 M P I1 0 0 56 2, T17R15S06 0 17 1, RA O DR T17R13S12 0 44 1, I10 E WINDY WY ED LAT NS S AVENIDA CUCANA 0 21 3, 0 80 1, T16R14S36 P R 2,860 1,650 0 40 1, T16R15S26 T16R15S34 T16R15S33 T16R15S32 T16R15S31 M N MARG T17R13S01 4,480 0 79 1, 0 00 1, RA I1 0 E DAWN DR N VID AL D HO S A HUA RITA 0 19 3, 2,430 0 68 1, E ANDRADA RD 0 96 1, T17R14S05 1, 86 0 T16R14S35 T16R14S34 T16R14S33 0 48 4, T17R14S06 3,100 9,810 T16R14S32 2,700 4,280 0 0 T16R15S27 T16R15S28 T16R15S29 T16R15S30 I10 W T16R14S25 T16R14S26 2,620 6,150 2,110 4,490 1, 86 0 2,9 0 1,1 4 1, 09 0 RD T16R16S20 T16R16S19 T16R15S24 T16R15S23 T16R16S15 N LANEY DR RANC 2,670 4,860 9,160 4,200 T16R14S31 0 34 7, 0 27 7, 0 02 4, BL T16R13S36 0 87 3, T16R14S27 T16R14S28 2,620 PIMA MINE RD 3,560 T16R14S29 8,170 NOGALES H Y T16R14S30 T16R13S25 3, 46 0 0 06 7, 7,390 ,8 10 50 6,220 9,890 2,450 1,930 3,960 1,450 19,210 3,080 3,800 1,150 1,150 T16R14S24 T16R14S23 T16R14S22 T16R14S21 T16R14S20 1,210 1,220 1,230 E FELIX RD T16R14S19 T16R13S24 T16R15S21 T16R15S20 T16R15S19 AG E E T16R15S22 E SUCCESS DR T16R16S16 T16R16S17 NT FR O LOSS AL C I1 0 E CO 15 -2 5 -1 2 -1 0 10 W T16R16S18 T16R15S13 DAWN RD 5 0. 2 0 E DAWN RD 2,060 2,070 T16R14S13 T16R14S14 1,470 2,120 T16R14S15 T16R14S16 T16R14S17 T16R14S18 T16R13S13 T16R15S14 T16R15S15 T16R15S16 T16R15S17 T16R15S18 E LUMBER ST -5 Flow depth (ft) -2 1 inch = 2,500 feet Streets (major) 1 Feet -1 10,000 0. 5 5,000 -0 .5 2,500 Flow Recording Cross Sections (Q-100>500 cfs) -0 .2 0 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study Legend 1,480 3,600 2,2 9 1,1 T17R16S32 40 0 0 49 1, T17R16S33 T17R16S34 Sheet 2 of 3 AVE RD T16R14S25 T16R16S28 S CAMINO LOMA ALTA S VAIL DESERT TR S RED HORIZON TR N GENTLE BREEZE LN N TOMASITA DR N SLATE DR N SHARON RD N VAIL VIEW RD N WENTWORTH RD N SALERO VIEW RD CAMINO AURELIA T17R15S29 T17R15S28 T17R15S27 T17R15S26 T17R15S32 T17R15S33 T17R15S34 T17R15S35 S HOUGHTON RD S MELVILLE AV WENTWORTH RD MELPOMENE WY S SAHUARITA PL S THREE WELLS CT S TATANKA LN HARRISON RD HARRISON RD S ALVERNON WY S KOLB RD S DESERT SAGUARO SHADOW PL S ANSON LN S BEARUP LN S MYRICK LN S IRVING AV S COLUMBUS BL S COLUMBUS BL S COUNTRY CLUB RD S ALVERNON WY S COUNTRY CLUB RD S DELGADO RD S DELGADO RD N BRAHMA RD S LANGLEY AV S CANDY LN S NOGALES HY S SANTA RITA RD S MANN AV S AVENIDA CUCANA HY T17R15S25 E ELF OWL TR T17R16S30 T17R16S29 T17R16S28 T17R15S36 T17R16S31 T17R16S32 T17R16S33 T17R16S22 ED IM P T17R16S27 LE TR E FORESIGHT RD NE OLD NOGAL ES T17R16S20 S GABLER LN HO S A HUA RITA S LA POSTA RD DR S LA VILLITA RD NTAN T17R16S19 T17R15S24 Y CO T17R14S25 L E WALTS WY T17R16S21 W MC T17R14S26 W S TA VIS S T17R14S27 E COPPER CHIEF TR D TE AIN SP D T17R14S28 ST ON GT T17R16S15 AV R A YTUM PL T17R16S16 S LI IL A IT E O BR T17R16S17 T17R16S10 E CALLE AGASSIZ W R CT T17R13S36 T17R14S29 T17R16S18 T17R16S09 E BROADVIEW DR S TA T17R14S30 E GRACE LN Y R N SA T17R15S30 T AF LE E LUTZ RD G E T17R13S25 ER AT DW E CAMINO AURELIA E AD T17R15S23 IN EX DR T17R14S24 T17R15S22 M HA NT RA T17R14S23 T17R15S21 SG E GOLDEN LN T17R15S20 IN TL T17R14S22 CAMINO DEL TORO T17R15S13 E VISTA MONTE DR W WELDON ST T17R15S19 E CAMINO ANTIGUA W E CAMINO DEL TORO T17R15S14 E LADY FAWN LN US E DAWSON RD T17R14S21 E WILDERNESS TR SR T17R14S20 TR T17R14S19 T17R14S13 T17R15S15 E E EL TORO RD T17R14S14 T17R14S15 T17R15S17 T17R15S18 T17R15S16 DG RI T17R14S16 E CALLE LUNA VISTA RE T17R14S17 E DAVIS RD E COMSOFT PL E VIA DE LA GRACIA T17R13S24 E BARNES LN E LOMAS DR T17R16S03 N SU D E SAHUARITA RD RD R R E ED LAT NS K SAHUARITA RD E SAHUARITA RD W SAHUARITA RD T17R16S08 WETSTONES RD R PA R T17R14S10 T17R14S09 W THREE KINGS RD O AM T17R14S18 IT A E HILLOCK ST T17R15S10 C SY T17R13S13 AR T17R15S09 T17R15S08 T17R16S07 T17R15S12 T17R15S11 S E SAHUARITA RD E NOYES ST T17R16S04 T17R16S05 W CAMINO DE LA REINA E WILEY LN D AR T17R14S08 T17R14S12 TA G R E CACTUS PATCH WY T17R16S06 T17R15S01 T17R15S02 T17R15S03 LN OL NS T17R14S07 T17R14S11 T17R15S04 E L UCCA E CALLE BACARDI O DR T17R13S12 U F E NANA DR N VID AL D T17R14S01 T17R15S07 SA H I1 0 BL E MOKES MILE TR T16R16S34 S CALLE RINCONADO BL ANDRADA RD E ANDRADA RD T17R15S05 N CALLE RINCONADO T16R16S33 T16R16S32 T16R14S36 E KRYSHANN ST S HY W N RO T16R16S27 N CALLE RINCONA DO T16R15S33 T16R15S32 T16R15S31 T16R16S31 T16R15S36 T16R15S35 T16R15S34 N MARG T17R13S01 T17R14S02 T17R14S03 ON DO E HAY BALE TR T17R15S06 T17R14S04 BE NS SU N S CAMINO LOMA ALTA T16R16S30 T16R15S25 T16R16S29 E ROSLYN LN T17R14S05 E I1 0 I1 0 S HOUND DOG RD WILMOT RD T16R15S26 T16R15S27 T16R15S28 T16R15S29 T16R15S30 E ANDRADA RD T17R14S06 T16R16S22 T16R16S21 M P S OCOTILLO RIDGE TR RA S SHARON RD I10 E WINDY WY N LANEY DR RANC P I1 0 S WILMOT RD T16R14S35 T16R14S34 T16R14S33 T16R14S32 M T16R16S20 E PIMA MINE RANCH RD T16R14S31 RA I1 0 E DAWN DR T16R14S24 NOGALES H Y PIMA MINE RD T16R13S36 T16R14S26 T16R14S27 T16R14S28 T16R14S29 T16R14S30 T16R13S25 I10 W HOUGHTON RD T16R14S23 T16R14S22 T16R14S21 T16R14S20 E FELIX RD T16R14S19 T16R13S24 T16R15S21 T16R15S20 T16R15S19 T16R16S19 T16R15S24 T16R15S23 T16R16S15 S BIRD DOG AV RD E T16R15S22 5 25 20 -3 5 0 15 -2 5 10 -1 0 5 -1 -5 2 -2 AG E S VAIL VIEW RD DAWN RD E SUCCESS DR T16R16S16 T16R16S17 NT FR O LOSS AL C E DAWN RD I1 0 E CO T16R14S13 T16R16S18 T16R15S13 W S WENTWORTH RD T16R14S14 0. 2 0 T16R14S15 T16R14S16 T16R14S17 T16R14S18 T16R13S13 T16R15S14 T16R15S15 T16R15S16 T16R15S17 T16R15S18 E LUMBER ST -2 Exhibit 1 - FLO-2D Predicted Flood Inundation Maps Flow Velocities 1 1 inch = 2,500 feet -1 Feet 0. 5 10,000 -0 .5 5,000 .2 2,500 Streets (major) Streets (all) 100-ft Resolution FLO-2D Model Boundary -0 0 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study Legend E CORTO RD T17R14S31 T17R14S32 T17R15S31 E CORTO RD T17R14S33 T17R14S34 T17R14S35 T17R14S36 T17R16S34 Sheet 3 of 3